Bilateral relations

Russian-British relations

Relations between Russia and Great Britain in their historical retrospect have never been simple. In recent years, our political relations have been characterized by instability, rather sharp transitions from a fairly prosperous state to an openly hostile one, which, unfortunately, serves as a barometer of the general state of our relations with the historical West. London, which, even despite Brexit, cannot give up its claim to articulate the so-called “common Western interest,” is at the forefront of efforts to introduce such complications.

Today, Russian-British relations are going through difficult times. Their positive development turned out to be significantly undermined due to London’s position regarding the situation in Ukraine and around Crimea, as well as on Syria.

We have to admit that at the moment the Russian-British political dialogue is almost completely curtailed. London unilaterally froze all bilateral formats of intergovernmental cooperation that have proven their relevance: the Strategic Dialogue in the “2+2” format (ministers of foreign affairs and defense), the High-Level Energy Dialogue, the work of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Investment and the Committee on Science and Technology . In fact, regular consultations between foreign policy departments have been stopped.

The British government makes unfriendly statements, which are then enshrined in official documents. The set of theses is not new, but the main thing that unites them is the irresponsible and unfounded nature of the accusations brought against Russia. The idea of ​​protecting the global order sounds especially cynical from the lips of the head of the British cabinet. Suffice it to recall the aggressive actions of Britain in Iraq and Libya, which did not lead to the strengthening of international law, but to the victims and suffering of millions of people and the destabilization of entire regions. At the same time, London demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the processes taking place in the world and the essence of the very international legal order based on the UN Charter, which Great Britain undertakes to defend.

British society is currently going through difficult times due to the process of the country's exit from the European Union and internal division. It is quite clear that in order to distract public attention, an external enemy is needed, which Russia has been chosen as. This cannot but cause regret, especially in conditions when a multi-vector, pragmatic and effective foreign policy would meet British interests, taking into account the country’s ambitions to become “Global Britain”. Such a course would open up additional opportunities for the United Kingdom in new, fast-growing markets, and would also strengthen its position in the world by developing dialogue with other countries. The path of confrontation chosen by London clearly will not help achieve its stated goals.

The UK’s actions regarding the EU’s maintenance of the anti-Russian sanctions regime, which representatives of British business operating in Russia have clearly spoken out against, are also counterproductive and senseless. With the addition of the chairmen of the chambers of the Federal Assembly, as well as other representatives of the Russian legislative branch, to the sanctions list, the British closed the path to maintaining regular inter-parliamentary contacts.

London is also not yet ready to review restrictive measures regarding the issuance of visas to Russian officials. The British continue to refuse to restore contacts through the intelligence services, which hinders the development of Russian-British cooperation in the field of countering terrorism.

At the same time, British law enforcement agencies are in no hurry to fulfill requests from the Russian Prosecutor General's Office for the extradition of Russian citizens in the United Kingdom against whom criminal cases have been initiated in Russia (currently there are more than 40 requests), mainly for economic crimes.

As a result, the picture of bilateral relations comes down to a kind of micro-agenda, consisting of technical, mainly visa issues.

Along with this, there is a certain activity in other areas: developing cultural ties, maintaining contacts with business, scientific, and political science circles, working with the media using the information resources of the embassy, ​​communicating with British citizens on the entire range of issues they raise.

One of the few bright pages in our relations in recent years has been the systematic work completed by the Embassy to present Ushakov medals to British veterans of the Arctic convoys. Ceremonies organized in a number of British regions, in which regional authorities took part, showed that a good attitude towards Russia and the memory of our joint struggle against fascism during the Second World War are maintained locally. In total, Russian state awards were presented to 3,159 veterans.

The efforts of our diplomats were universally appreciated by veterans and their families. The hundreds of letters of gratitude received by the Embassy, ​​photographs from personal archives and written evidence of participation in the Arctic convoys demonstrate the keen interest of the British in the bright pages of our common history.

Interregional ties have suffered significantly from complications in our relations, and official delegation exchanges with the British have sharply decreased. The dialogue is supported mainly by the expert community and civil society. In these conditions, contacts through “public diplomacy”, associated primarily with the expansion of cooperation between the Russian and British regions, including sister cities, have acquired particular importance.

Contacts in the field of cultural cooperation can be added to the treasury of our bilateral relations. In this area, the British public and cultural community are ready to conduct a direct and unbiased dialogue despite the political situation. Interest in Russian art - both classical and modern - turned out to be immune to political storms. Every year in the UK there are successful tours of the Bolshoi Theatre, Russian Film Week in London, as well as a large number of art and other thematic exhibitions. Interaction and exchange of experience between the Russian and British Academies of Sciences continues in the format of bilateral meetings of leading scientists.

Performance for children 6+. Sherlock Holmes. Theater behind the Black River in London Mr. Sherlock Holmes is the best detective in the world. He can unravel any complex case and find the criminal without even leaving his famous room on Baker Street. Do you know what a detective's room looks like? It is filled with many intricate devices, magnifying glasses, microscopes and bottles of chemical reagents. And all this helps him in investigating the incredible incidents taking place in London and its environs... But now he is already on stage, which means that he has taken on another case and the incredible adventures of the noble Sherlock Holmes and his brave Doctor Watson await us.

Comedy "Angels on the Roof" The production "Angels on the Roof" is an eccentric comedy that will give viewers a story about how you should never lose hope in life. The main character couldn’t find a better remedy for her problems than going to the roof of a high-rise building. But the unexpected meeting does not allow her to make a mistake - on the contrary, it gave her a second chance. And she will overcome life’s difficulties not alone, but together with other heroes.

The English irregular verb trainer will help you remember their spelling and meaning. Fill in the empty cells. If you spelled it correctly, the word will change color from red to green. Refresh the page or click the "Start Again" button and you will see the new order of empty cells. Train again!

Modal verbs in English are a class of auxiliary verbs. Modal verbs are used to express ability, necessity, certainty, possibility or likelihood. We use modal verbs if we talk about abilities or possibilities, ask or give permission, ask, offer, etc. Modal verbs are not used independently, but only with the infinitive of the main verb as a compound predicate.

A little about the history of relations between Russia and Great Britain

Despite the fact that Russia and geographically are far from each other, over the centuries our countries have found common ground in different areas. In the relations between the two countries there are many examples of both successful cooperation and conflicts, sometimes bloody.

One of the first written confirmed political contacts between the two countries was the marriage of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vladimir Monomakh With Gita of Wessex.

Gita of Wessex, after the death of her father, the last Anglo-Saxon king Harald, who died at the Battle of Hanstings in 1066, fled from England through Flanders and ended up in Denmark with her uncle, who married her to Vladimir Monomakh (presumably in 1075). She gave birth to Vladimir several children (according to various sources, from 10 to 12), the eldest of whom, Mstislav the Great, inherited the Kiev throne from his father. Interestingly, in Europe he was known as Harald, which is what his mother called Gita of Wessex. According to some sources, she was the mother of another Grand Duke, Yuri Dolgoruky, during whose reign many cities were founded, including Moscow.

Diplomatic relations Russia and England established it in the 16th century. In this century, English navigators made several attempts to find the North-East route to China and India, since the overland caravan route was too difficult and expensive. In 1553, a merchant association was created in London: “The Society of Merchants, Seekers of Countries and Dominions, Unknown and Hitherto Unvisited by Sea.” Three ships were equipped for the expedition, two of which died during a storm, and the third, under the command of Richard Chancellor, was forced to stop in Arkhangelsk. And Chancellor ended up in Moscow and was introduced to the Tsar Ivan IV and presented him with a letter from the English King Edward VI. Since then, not only diplomatic but also trade relations have been established between the powers. The Moscow Trading Company was organized in London, to which Queen Mary Tudor granted monopoly rights to trade with Russia. The company existed until 1917.

In 1556, the first Russian envoy, Osip Nepeya, was sent to London, and the English diplomat Anthony Jenkins was sent to Moscow.

Ivan the Terrible, with his characteristic obsession, became fascinated by the idea of ​​getting closer to the new Queen of England, Elizabeth I. Historians call this “Anglomania” of Ivan the Terrible, and contemporaries dubbed the tsar “English” for this. The British were given duty-free trade rights, the right to settle in Vologda and Kholmogory, to build an ironworks in Vychegda and other privileges. Ivan the Terrible offered Elizabeth a close alliance and an agreement to provide each other with asylum in the event of an aggravation of the situation in their native country. And then, unexpectedly, through an envoy in 1567, he proposed marriage to Elizabeth. The Queen, in order not to jeopardize trade with Muscovy, chose the tactic of delaying her response, and then, when the Tsar finally received an official refusal, he furiously wrote her a letter, calling her a “vulgar girl.”

In 1569, Ivan the Terrible proposed to England a political alliance directed against Poland. Elizabeth rejected this offer as well. The day after her answer was delivered to the king, the English merchants were deprived of all privileges.

The tsar remembered England only in 1581, when, after failures in the war with Poland, he asked for military help and the hand of the queen’s relative, Maria Hastings (despite the fact that at that time he was married to the noblewoman Maria Nagaya). Maria agreed to the marriage, but then, having learned the details of the king’s character, she flatly refused.

One of the first written descriptions of Rus' by the British dates back to this time; it belongs to the pen of G. Turberville, who testified that “the cold here is extraordinary” and “the people are rude.”

Boris Godunov, who ascended the throne after the son of Ivan the Terrible, Fyodor Ioanovich, also treated England favorably. In 1602, 5 “children of the boyars” were sent to London to teach “the science of various languages ​​and literacy.” Having completed their studies, the boyar children decided not to return home, despite persistent demands from Russia. They apparently became the first Russian immigrants to the island.

In 1614, the young king Mikhail Romanov turned to the English King James I with a request to mediate in negotiations with Sweden on peace in the protracted war. Thanks to the efforts of the English envoy in Moscow, John Merick, this peace was concluded in 1617, for which the tsar generously thanked him.

The first visit of a royal person to Great Britain was Grand Embassy of Peter I. He arrived in London on 11 January 1698 on a private visit. Despite the private nature of the visit, Peter I met with the king twice William III, who presented the Russian Tsar with a 20-gun yacht. Peter visited Parliament, the Royal Society, Oxford University, the Mint, the Greenwich Observatory, and concluded an agreement with the East India Company for the supply of tobacco to Russia, which was previously considered a “devil’s potion” in Russia. 60 different English specialists, hired by him to work in Russia, left London with Peter.

In May 1707, the first permanent Russian ambassador to Great Britain, A.A., arrived in London. Matveev.

In the 18th century, Russian students began to actively come to Great Britain and studied at the universities of London, Oxford, Cambridge, and Glasgow. At this time, an embassy church “The Orthodox Greek-Russian Church of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary located in London” appeared in London.

The political relations of the Russian and British empires in the 18th - 19th centuries were quite contradictory. States fought against each other in Seven Years' War (1756-1763), fought in the alliance during Wars of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748). When the British turned to Catherine II with a request to assist them in the war against the rebellious colonies in North America, the Russian empress refused. “What right do I have,” she said, “to interfere in a feud that does not concern me, in matters incomprehensible to me, and in the relations of powers that are very distant from me.” Catherine issued a declaration of the first armed neutrality.

In September 1800, British troops occupied Malta. Russian Emperor Paul I, being the Grand Master of the Order of Malta, was also the head of state of Malta. Paul responded by arresting all English ships in Russian ports and banning the sale of English goods. After breaking off diplomatic relations with Britain, he became close to Napoleon I, planning joint expansion in India.

These plans were not destined to come true; Paul I was killed as a result of a palace coup, in the preparation of which the English ambassador Whitworth played an important role.

New Emperor of the Russian Empire Alexander I restored diplomatic relations with Britain the day after his accession to the throne. After the conclusion of the Peace of Tilsit, which was humiliating for Alexander I, the Russian Empire had to participate in the continental blockade of Great Britain and even participate in the Russian-English War of 1807-1812. Losses in this war amounted to about 1,000 people on both sides. In 1812, Russia and Great Britain entered into an alliance against Napoleon.

From 1821 to 1829, the countries fought in an alliance against the Ottoman Empire during the Greek War of Independence.

In 1839, the future emperor visited London Alexander II. The heir to the Russian throne was then 20 years old and he became seriously interested in the queen Victoria, who was not yet married at that time. He was even ready to marry her and leave Russia, becoming a prince consort, but his father, Emperor Nicholas I, did not allow him. Subsequently, as monarchs, Alexander II and Victoria experienced mutual hostility.

Crimean War 1853-1856 became the bloodiest conflict in the history of British-Russian relations. Anti-Russian sentiments were intensified in Great Britain, and anti-English ones in Russia.

In 1854, the London Times wrote: “It would be nice to return Russia to the cultivation of inland lands, to drive the Muscovites deep into the forests and steppes.” In the same year, D. Russell, leader of the House of Commons and head of the Liberal Party, said: “We must tear the fangs out of the bear... Until his fleet and naval arsenal in the Black Sea are destroyed, there will be no peace in Europe.”

The total losses in the Crimean or Eastern War - Russia and the anti-Russian coalition, in which Great Britain participated, amounted to about 250 thousand people.

In 1894, the imperial houses of Russia and Great Britain nevertheless became related through the granddaughter of Queen Victoria - Princess Alice of Hesse, who received the name Alexandra Feodorovna at baptism.

Moreover, Queen Victoria herself took a large part in organizing this marriage, despite the fact that Emperor Alexander III did not approve of this marriage. In 1896 Nicholas II And Alexandra Fedorovna visited Queen Victoria in London.

The Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907 marked the beginning of the military-political alliance of the Entente; the empires were allies in the First World War.

Since the 19th century, numerous political emigrants from Russia settled in London. Of the most famous - A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev with his wife N.A. Tuchkova. In 1853 they began publishing the newspaper “The Bell” and the almanac “Polar Star”. For many years, Kolokol was considered the mouthpiece of the revolutionary movement in Russia.

Many famous people from Russia came to Herzen in London. Among them is I.S. Turgenev, Baron A.I. Delvig, Prince V. Dolgorukov, I. Cherkassky, artist A.A. Ivanov, actor N.M. Shchepkin. Herzen and Ogarev were visited in London by Leo Tolstoy and Nikolai Chernyshevsky.

In 1886, an anarchist prince settled in London P.A. Kropotkin. He created the London Group of Russian Anarchist Workers, which published and distributed propaganda literature. Several of Kropotkin's books were published in London, including the famous Notes of a Revolutionary.

One of Kropotkin's closest associates in London was the writer and revolutionary CM. Stepnyak-Kravchinsky. He ended up in London after the murder of the chief of gendarmes N.V. Mezentsev. In London he published the magazine Free Russia.

In 1902, the editorial office of the newspaper Iskra moved to London from Munich, along with V.I. Lenin, N.K. Krupskaya, Yu.O. Martov and V.I. Zasulich. From April 1902 to April 1902, Lenin and Krupskaya lived in London under the name Richter.

In July-August, the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP took place in London, moving there after it was dispersed by the Brussels police.

After the October Revolution of 1917, emigrants of opposing political beliefs poured into London. There is no exact data on how many emigrants of the first wave settled in London; most often they talk about the figure of 50 thousand people. Now completely different organizations were created in the capital of Great Britain: the Committee for the Liberation of Russia, which professed the views of the Cadet Party, the Society of Northerners and Siberians, headed by the Socialist-Revolutionary A.V. Baikalov; Russian-British Brotherhood; Russian academic group. In London, magazines and newspapers were published in Russian, Russian teachers taught at universities, Russian shops, restaurants, and banks operated.

At this time, Great Britain took an active part in the intervention in Soviet Russia. The British landed on the White and Baltic seas, in Transcaucasia, Vladivostok, on the Black Sea - in Sevastopol, Novorossiysk and Batum. Colonial troops from Canada, Australia, and India were also brought into Russian territory.

In 1921, Great Britain resumed trade relations with Soviet Russia, and in 1924 recognized the Soviet Union as a state.

Since 1941, the USSR and Great Britain cooperated within the framework of the anti-Hitler coalition. And with the outbreak of the Cold War, relations between the two powers remained cold for many decades, many times complicated by spy scandals.

Spy scandals and disagreements over extradition issues complicate relations between Britain and the Russian Federation in the 21st century. In 2010, MI5 released data that the number of Russian spies in Great Britain is at Cold War levels, and apparently there are no fewer British spies in Russia.

Professor of the Department of History and Politics of European and American Countries N.K. Kapitonova - about the situation in relations between Russia and the United Kingdom.

The situation in relations between London and Moscow in connection with the incident in Salisbury is increasingly tense. The British leadership did not limit itself to making unsubstantiated and insulting accusations against Russia and President Putin personally, but resorted to expelling 23 Russian diplomats from the country, froze political contacts (which were practically non-existent anyway), and issued threats against the capital of Russian oligarchs in the UK.

Russia, as expected, responded in a mirror way. However, Theresa May did not stop there: she went straight to the EU summit in Brussels, where, attributing to Russia the intention to divide the West and sow chaos, she called for an immediate response in the form of the adoption of a joint action plan against Moscow.

The EU’s response was to recognize “with a high degree of probability” Russia’s responsibility for the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter with nerve gas, as well as to recall the EU ambassador from Moscow “for consultations.” The next step was the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats from the United States and EU member states as a sign of solidarity with London.

Well, this is not the first time that Great Britain has resorted to a method that has been tested in the past and has proven itself well - provocations of this kind in order to solve other problems that it finds difficult to resolve in any other way. The most striking example from the distant past that immediately comes to mind is the famous “Zinoviev letter” or “Comintern letter”: this fake, concocted in the depths of the British intelligence services, with instructions from the Chairman of the Comintern to the British communists on organizing an armed uprising in the country, was planted in October 1924 a few days before the general election in Great Britain with the aim of bringing down the Labor government and ensuring a Conservative victory. It worked: in the wake of the anti-Soviet campaign they had inflated, the Tories gained an absolute majority in the House of Commons.

The position of Soviet Russia, which strongly condemned this provocation, was ignored. More than 40 years passed, and in 1996, the chief historian of the Foreign Office, J. Bennett, after a thorough investigation, confirmed that Moscow was right, recognizing the “Comintern letter” as a fake, manufactured in the bowels of the intelligence services (however, she laid the main blame on the whites from Latvia, whose information, due to negligence, was allegedly not double-checked by the British intelligence services). It is clear that there were no apologies from the British side after this admission.

Another provocation against our country, accompanied by a noisy information campaign, was undertaken in 1971 by the government of E. Heath, which tried to disrupt preparations for the Security Conference by accusing them of espionage and expelling 105 employees of Soviet institutions (“Operation Foot”) from Great Britain and cooperation in Europe, which was in full swing between the USSR and European countries, which did not suit the Tories at all. This provocation, condemned by the Labor Party and not supported by Britain's Western European partners, could not interfere with the holding of the CSCE, only slightly delaying the preparatory period, and the Conservatives themselves soon failed in the elections.

The UK has resorted to unprecedented information attacks based on unsubstantiated accusations in the recent past. The large-scale anti-Serbian campaign directed against the “dictator” Milosevic, who was blamed for the “humanitarian catastrophe” in Kosovo, has not yet been forgotten. To increase general hysteria in the country in order to justify military intervention, the British authorities then overestimated the number of victims of the so-called “ethnic cleansing” allegedly undertaken by the Serbs against the Albanians by 40 times. Thus, the Blair government received a formal reason and moral justification for NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” against Yugoslavia, which took place in 1999.

And the famous intelligence report designed to justify Britain's invasion of Iraq in 2003? (It was dubbed the “slick dossier” in the British media). Subsequently, it became known that in accordance with the directives issued from above, the special services gave him more and more credibility during the preparation process, adjusting him to the desired result. As an independent commission led by Sir Chilcott found in 2016, investigating the circumstances surrounding the involvement in the war, the report was replete with astonishingly falsified data: for example, about Saddam Hussein’s 45-minute readiness to use weapons of mass destruction (which, as is known, was not found), about Iraq’s ability to create an atomic bomb in the near future (to make it more convincing, the creation time was reduced from five to two and a half years), not to mention the fact that evidence of Hussein’s possession of chemical weapons, as well as the appearance of those containing its containers were borrowed from the Hollywood blockbuster “The Rock” with the participation of famous stars S. Connery and N. Cage. The basis of the intelligence dossier, as it turned out, was an article by a certain Californian student. And this is only a small part of the conclusions reached by the commission, which pronounced a clear and unequivocal verdict on this adventure of Tony Blair. Similar examples could be listed further.

What are we seeing now? The situation in the Conservative Party and in the country as a whole is not developing at all as the British leadership would like. Theresa May's gross miscalculation in holding early elections led to a significant weakening of the Tories' position, a strengthening of Labor (they gained an additional 30 seats in the House of Commons) and a real threat of the removal of the party leader and prime minister. The date of Britain's exit from the European Union is rapidly approaching, and there is no unity between May and the leading members of the cabinet on many issues - neither on the price of the “divorce,” nor on the duration of the transition period, nor on the format of relations with the EU in the future. At the same time, London is opposed by the single tough position of Brussels, which consistently dictates its terms to it. Not only can the United Kingdom, split into supporters and opponents of Brexit, turn into a Disunited Kingdom, but dissatisfaction with Eurosceptic conservatives, who recklessly promised on the eve of the referendum an easy exit from the EU and significant financial savings by stopping payments to the Union budget, is intensifying. In fact, it turned out the other way around - the amount of “compensation” will be at least 32 billion pounds sterling, or even much more, because according to data leaked to the media from secret calculations of the British government, the “net loss” from Brexit could reach 80 billion pounds sterling. And if until recently the economic situation in the country was not as catastrophic as many analysts predicted, then just recently the “ice has broken” in an unfavorable direction: the largest international corporation Unilever announced the transfer of its headquarters from London to the Netherlands. Although the decision was accompanied by soothing statements about the lack of any connection with Brexit, it could serve as an example for other corporations (there are about a hundred of them on the fence), in turn providing a bargaining chip in the hands of those who accuse the May government of pursuing a course that promotes flight of business from Britain.

At the same time, the intention to consolidate British society and especially the elite, on which Theresa May and the Tories remain in power, through tough measures against Moscow, is not the only goal that she pursues. No less important for London is the consolidation of the European elite, which has recently shown signs of confusion and vacillation, calling into question the need to maintain the policy of sanctions against Russia (primarily Austria, Hungary and Italy). Britain is seriously concerned about the prospect of an inevitable reduction in its influence in European affairs and in world politics in general after Brexit. She is desperately trying to preserve her fading political leadership (this process has been observed especially clearly over the past six to seven years, during which Britain was pushed to the margins of the European Union, which was one of the reasons for Brexit). And this can be done using a proven and effective means in the past - the “Russian/Soviet threat”: to discredit Russia by accusing it as an aggressor country that uses chemical weapons on the territory of other states, including in Syria, of promoting terrorism and calling on partners to stand shoulder to shoulder in the face of this common terrible threat.

One of the important goals pursued by Britain is also the organization of a boycott of the World Cup in Russia: London has long been unable to forgive Moscow that it will not be held in Great Britain. It was for the sake of revising this decision that the fuss around corruption in FIFA was started at one time. It was British Prime Minister Cameron who put significant pressure on the elected president of the organization, Blatter, threatening to boycott the championship, as a result of which he was forced to resign. Since then, threats against the championship have not stopped.

Apparently, May also hopes that the hysterical Russophobic campaign she launched will help strengthen NATO and revive the special relationship with Washington, which, with the advent of Donald Trump as President, began to erode, losing its former significance, and also in the context of general hysteria will facilitate the resolution of problems related to Brexit.

In general, the reasons for the campaign and the goals for the sake of which Theresa May is sacrificing, possibly for many years, relations with Moscow are clear. I would not like to unfoundedly accuse the British side of organizing this provocation, but it must be admitted that, given the well-known reputation of the British intelligence services, this does not seem incredible (the formula “look who benefits” has not yet been canceled). Moreover, after Washington’s large-scale measures against Moscow (the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats), taken after a short pause in support of London, the story of the poisoning of the Skripals looks “highly likely” as a joint action by Britain and the United States with the aim of finally demonizing Russia and its president.

In this whole story, the truth of which will someday become known, one thing is striking: the tone in which the British side allowed itself to speak to Moscow, which goes far beyond what is acceptable in diplomatic relations. Apart from D. Miliband’s brazen advice to “change the constitution” given to Russia in 2007 in response to its refusal to extradite Russian citizen Lugovoy to Britain, such an insulting tone towards our country, much less an ultimatum, has not been observed since 1923. What Regarding the rhetoric of the “master of insults” Boris Johnson, it is partly explained by his impulsiveness, rich imagination and promiscuity: he, in particular, is known for the fact that even when he was a correspondent for the Daily Telegraph newspaper in Brussels, he often “decorated” his correspondence with non-existent in the nature of “interviews” and made-up stories (in other words, he did not hesitate to lie), for which his boss called him a charlatan. In addition, Johnson was already distinguished by contradictory statements, demonstrating the ability to quickly change his point of view to the exact opposite depending on the prevailing circumstances.

Having become a minister, he repeatedly shocked the British and international public with shocking statements addressed to many foreign leaders, as well as comparing the European Union with the Third Reich. But as the head of the Foreign Office, vying for the post of Conservative leader and prime minister, he should have been more careful and careful in his language. It is no coincidence that one of the veterans of the Liberal Democratic Party described Johnson's appointment as Foreign Secretary as "the stupidest appointment since Caligula made his horse consul."

As for Theresa May, she is following in the footsteps of her idol Margaret Thatcher, although the harsh public statements of the latter, as well as her cabinet ministers, towards our country and the Soviet leadership at the height of the freezing of bilateral relations over Afghanistan still did not go beyond the generally accepted framework and did not stoop to personal insults. In addition, soon after her victory in the 1983 elections, Thatcher significantly adjusted her course towards Moscow and was the first Western leader to establish an intensive political dialogue with it, turning it into an important component of world politics and playing one of the main roles in ending the Cold War. It would be naive to expect anything like this from May.

Diplomatic relations between Great Britain and the USSR were established in 1924, severed in 1927 and restored again in 1929. In December 1991, Great Britain officially recognized the Russian Federation as the legal successor of the USSR.

Diplomatic relations between Great Britain and the USSR were established in 1924, severed in 1927 and restored again in 1929. In December 1991, Great Britain officially recognized the Russian Federation as the legal successor of the USSR.

The basis of the legal framework, numbering more than 50 intergovernmental agreements, is the Treaty on the Principles of Friendship between the United Kingdom and Russia (1992). There is a constant political dialogue between Russia and Great Britain. Contacts at the highest level intensified significantly in 2000.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair became the first Western leader to arrive in Russia to meet with Vladimir Putin, then acting. President of the Russian Federation (March 2000). Great Britain became the first Western country visited by Vladimir Putin as the elected president of the Russian Federation. Since then, the leaders of both countries have met about 20 times during bilateral visits and meetings at various international events. An important moment in the political relations of the two countries was the state visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the UK in June 2003 (the first state visit by a Russian head of state to the United Kingdom in the last 159 years). As a result, a number of important bilateral documents were signed.

In 2005, Vladimir Putin and Tony Blair met three times. On June 12, 2005, Tony Blair came to Russia on a working visit. In July, the leaders of the two countries participated in the G8 summit in Scotland. And in September, Vladimir Putin and Tony Blair met in New York at the 2005 Summit, which took place within the framework of the 60th session of the UN General Assembly.

On October 4-5, 2005, Russian President Vladimir Putin will make a working visit to the UK, during which issues of the fight against international terrorism, as well as the state of trade and economic ties and other bilateral issues will be discussed at the official residence of Prime Minister Tony Blair on Downing Street. . British representatives do not rule out that following the discussion a statement will be adopted on issues of countering international terrorism. Special attention is planned to be paid to joint work within the G8, including taking into account the upcoming transfer of chairmanship in this group of industrialized countries from Great Britain to Russia at the end of the year. The President of Russia will present Russian state awards to officers and employees of the British Navy who participated in the operation to rescue the crew of a Russian bathyscaphe off the coast of Kamchatka in August, and will also meet with representatives of British business circles.

Russia and Great Britain traditionally have close trade and economic relations. Economic ties have been developing especially intensively in the last decade. In 2004, trade turnover amounted to $9.27 billion. Russia imports machinery, equipment, chemical products, exports oil, non-ferrous and ferrous metals.

In terms of accumulated investment in the Russian economy in 2004, Great Britain took fifth place ($8.67 billion). The British show the greatest interest in the Russian fuel and energy complex and the development of hydrocarbon deposits. The UK has the second largest program of economic and technical cooperation with Russia after the US. Representative offices of 483 British companies have been opened in Russia. More than 400 British companies are accredited in Moscow alone, and the number of joint ventures with a share of British capital is about 800.

Historical reference

In 1553, an expedition under the command of Sir Hugh Willoughby was sent from London in search of a north-eastern route to India. In the accompanying letter, King Edward VI asked all influential persons “everywhere under the common firmament” to take into account that “Our Lord in heaven and on earth, who looks after the seas with kindness, did not provide for everything necessary to have in one region, so that some need others, thereby strengthening friendship between all people, and so that everyone would seek thanksgiving for everyone."

Willoughby was not destined to survive the White Sea, but his deputy Richard Chancellor brought the survivors to Moscow, where they were warmly received by Ivan the Terrible. On Chancellor's second visit, in 1555, the king sent with him the envoy Osip Nepeya - not only to develop trade relations, but also to explore the possibilities of purchasing weapons and hiring artisans. Unfortunately, in November 1556, on his way back, Chancellor drowned off the north-east coast of Scotland. Nepeya escaped, although the expensive gifts that he carried with him were lost - either in a shipwreck, or not without the participation of his “rude and greedy companions,” as the chronicler assessed them. At the same time, Bishop Leslie, in his History of Scotland, spoke more favorably of them, noting that Nepean had “good support from his countrymen.” The royal envoy, having reached London, managed to establish strong relations not only with Edward VI, but also with his successor Mary.

During the reign of the Tudors, a correspondence began between Ivan IV and Elizabeth, and the king went so far as to invite his English addressee to conclude an agreement on asylum and even marriage - if not with the queen herself, then with one of the ladies of her court. Trade developed through the Moscow Company, and in 1588, ships equipped with equipment from Russia went into battle against the Spanish Armada.

One of the first written evidence about the Muscovite kingdom belongs to George Turberville, who complained that “the cold here is extraordinary,” and “the people are rude,” and that if he wrote in more detail, his “pen would not stand it.” Thus, the author set the persistently biased tone characteristic of many British writings about Russians, which could undoubtedly negatively affect the work of many typewriters and electronic text editors.

The next Russian envoy's negotiating partner was a representative of James VI of Scotland. The year was 1603. The kingdoms of England and Scotland have already united, but their heraldic lions on their coats of arms have not yet. James VI Stuart even had the courage to consider taking a large chunk of Russian territory in 1611, when the state was effectively falling apart due to civil war, aggravated by foreign invasion. This project was presented to the king as "the greatest and most successful initiative that has ever been made to any of the rulers of this kingdom since Columbus approached Henry VII with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bopening the West Indies." Henry Brereton in “Notes on the present Russian disasters that happened from the last war in this country” (1614) wrote about the invasion in 1610 of the Swedish army, which also consisted of the English, French and Scots: “Although they came as friends to help, it is unlikely that anyone can keep the army from looting and robbery, which the unfortunate Russians fully felt during this bloody war." But the election of Mikhail Romanov to the kingdom in 1613 marked the beginning of a new unity of the state.

James's son Charles I became involved in civil war in his homeland. The Russian envoy G.S. Dokhturov, who arrived in London in 1645 to report the death of Tsar Michael and the accession of his heir Alexei, received a sufficient impression of the troubles that befell England and Scotland. It is a pity that the ambassador was not able to familiarize himself with more recent research by historians on this topic and thereby avoid a simplified understanding of the issue. In his opinion, the conflict between the king and parliament arose as a result of Charles’s commitment to autocracy and Catholicism, and the merchant people sided with parliament, while the nobility supported the king.

Russia, like other European states, also experienced a crisis in the middle of the 17th century. But even despite quite serious opposition movements, Alexei sat confidently on the throne, which was further strengthened during the reign of his son, Peter the Great. The Stuarts, who again came to power in the person of Charles II in 1660 after the Cromwellian Interregnum, were overthrown again in 1688, this time completely: both Charles and James VII lost their thrones and fled to France. Followers of the Jacobist movement, laboring over the restoration of the monarchy, could be found in many countries, including those surrounded by Peter the Great and his heirs. There was even a plan to arrange a marriage between Peter’s daughter Elizabeth and Karl Edward, which, however, failed. Throughout the 17th century, England gave priority to trade, while Russia gave priority to politics. An example of this is the period after 1649, when Tsar Alexei expelled English merchants from Russia on trumped-up charges of their involvement in the execution of Charles I. The Scots gained fame in the mercenary service, and some of them, such as Patrick Gordon, reached the highest positions.

Interaction in the field of culture was scarce due to religious differences, although there was a dialogue between the Orthodox and Protestant churches regarding possible cooperation in the fight against the common enemy - Catholicism. Before the advent of the secular book in Russia, literary connections were limited to quotes from English authors, in particular Shakespeare and Milton. In “A Brief History of Muscovy,” the latter, drawing comparisons with England from the point of view of “morals, faith, government, and the like,” argued that Russia is “the northernmost region of Europe that can be considered civilized.” The perception of Europe as a kind of unified space, which emerged towards the end of the 17th century, became more important than the differences between the leading movements in Christianity.

The famous visit of Peter the Great to London in 1698 opened a new page in both diplomatic and cultural-economic senses. Although the writer John Evelyn wrote in his diary that Peter and his entourage were “simply intolerable” (they destroyed the house they rented from him), the Bishop of Salisbury was pleasantly surprised by the level of Peter’s education and noted that the king “carefully studied the Bible.”

In 1707, the union of the Scottish and English parliaments helped reduce the threat of Jacobism. But when the Elector of Hanover became George I in 1714, Peter was still suspected of sympathizing with the disgraced Stuarts, as well as claims to the Baltic states and northern Germany. Daniel Defoe was among the writers who published “authentic notes from Russia,” which spoke with alarm of a new force gaining power. It is not without reason that in the second part of Robinson Crusoe, his hero makes his way through the harsh, endless Siberia.

Commercial relations strengthened after a trade agreement was concluded in 1736. Russia and Great Britain fought side by side throughout almost the entire Seven Years' War. However, during the American War of Independence, the former allies were on opposite sides of the barricades: Catherine the Great pursued a policy of armed neutrality, looking down on what she considered the clumsy approach of “Brother George” to the American problem.

So, in the middle of a 450-year historical journey, relations between Great Britain and Russia were far from friendly. But then both countries united in the fight against the French Revolution, and at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries in Russia, a period of “Anglomania” can be clearly distinguished. This later resulted in the literary influence of Lord Byron on Pushkin and Sir Walter Scott on Tolstoy.

As a Russian poet said in the second half of the 18th century, “Peter gave bodies to the Russians, Catherine gave souls,” thereby accurately noting the commitment of each of the monarchs to practical and cultural activities, respectively. British scholars have praised Catherine's contributions to the development of the arts, including her tutelage of the Scottish architect Charles Cameron. One of them wrote: “Until now, Russians have rarely shown themselves in the field of literature, but the highest patronage in the establishment of academies and other scientific colleges, recently provided by their monarchs, provides strong evidence that they are in no way lagging behind in mental abilities. The papers they discuss at their academic meetings receive the most enthusiastic evaluations in Europe."

However, the cartoonist Gillray, like many others, did not miss the opportunity to play up the well-known love of the empress when it came to her imperial ambitions or assertive foreign policy. In one of his works, Catherine from the theater box shouts to the Turkish Sultan sitting below: “Damn you, you old goat! Lock so many women in your seraglio! I will open a new page in history and allow each woman to have 20,000 men.”

Soon Alexander I had to listen to curses addressed to him for the Treaty of Tilsit of 1807 with Napoleon, and in 1812 to accept congratulations for the victory over the French invaders. When Alexander, as the winner, was invited to visit London, his marshal, Barclay de Tolly, was asked to return to his family's Scottish estate, Towie Barclay Castle in the County of Aberdeen.

However, almost immediately after the celebrations, relations deteriorated, and a new wave of Russophobia arose. This was due to the suppression of the Polish uprising of 1830-1831 and the severity of the Eastern Question. In his student years, Tennyson exclaimed: “God, how long will this continue? How long will these heartless Muscovites oppress this region?” The slogan “We will not give Constantinople to the Russians!” resounded loudly during the Crimean War. Fears also grew. During a sermon on April 26, 1854, the “day of national mourning,” warnings were sounded that hostilities could not only spread to the shores of Britain, but the enemy could win: “The very thought of it is terrible - a enslaved country, bloody streets, domination despots, violated freedoms, trampled rights, shackles and death."

While Queen Victoria shared the widely held views of her subjects about the uncouth "Russian bear", the tsars, who had unlimited power, did not consider the British system to be a full-fledged monarchy, and this was unlikely to please the queen. Britain's Great Campaign in Afghanistan intensified the rivalry. At the same time, a common enemy appeared in the person of Turkey, and with the weakening of the power of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, the “Eastern Question” was reformulated. Constance Garnett, with her translations of Tolstoy and other leading Russian writers, helped dispel the myth of the “Russian barbarians.” Russian culture in all its diversity began to have a serious influence on British culture, especially after the tour of the Imperial Ballet.

In 1896, Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra Feodorovna went on a grand tour of Europe. Queen Victoria was delighted to see again her granddaughter, "dear Aliki", who had spent several of her childhood years with her after her mother's untimely death. But the Queen was recommended to receive the royal family at the Scottish royal residence of Balmoral, and not in London. After all, Nicholas had already acquired an extremely negative reputation, so Russian radicals and members of the secret Irish Fenian society were overwhelmed with determination to eliminate the tsar. When Nicholas arrived in Aberdeen, the respectable local newspaper Bon Accord, which could hardly be suspected of revolutionary sentiments, wrote that he was “a tyrant who mercilessly trampled on the independence of his subjects.”

Omissions and misunderstandings carried over into the 20th century. When the Russian Pacific Fleet was defeated at the start of the war with Japan in 1904 and the Baltic Fleet took to the oceans to take revenge on the enemy, the Russians mistook British fishing boats in the North Sea for enemy ships and fired on them. Some British political forces used this incident as a reason to call for a declaration of war from the pages of newspapers.

As the Triple Alliance began to raise tensions in the Balkans and beyond, Britain joined forces with Russia and France to form the Entente. What is certain is that the Allies helped each other more than once at key moments in the First World War. For example, immediately after it began, Russia could rightfully claim that the Battle of the Marne, which saved Paris, was won at the cost of the lives of Russian soldiers in East Prussia.

“Bloody Nicholas” and the autocracy continued to spoil the impression of the “noble mission of the West.” But his overthrow during the February Revolution of 1917, which occurred shortly after the US entry into hostilities, made it possible to imagine events in such a way that the war was waged by the forces of democracy (both in the West and in the East) against the autocracy of the Triple Alliance. True, the tsar and his family were a problem for the Provisional Government. There was talk that George V should provide the Romanovs with asylum, and they could be taken out by sea. But neither the king nor Prime Minister Lloyd George wanted to be attacked by hostile newspapers and public opinion. Therefore, Kerensky sent the Romanovs to Siberia.

The fall of the Provisional Government and the seizure of power by Lenin and the Bolsheviks in October of the same year put an end to the process of rapprochement between the two states: the aggravation of Russophobia was aggravated by the fear of communism. There were slightly more fans of the hammer and sickle in Britain than fans of the double-headed eagle. When news of the execution of the royal family reached London in July 1918, only a small note appeared in the newspapers. In 1919, information leaked that the Russian Revolution was spreading to British cities, especially Glasgow. But these were just rumors.

In 1921, commercial interests forced Great Britain to recognize the existence of Soviet Russia, and political recognition followed in 1924. But that same year, the false “Zinoviev letter,” calling for the violent overthrow of the government, reignited anti-Soviet sentiment, even though the Soviet regime’s policies during the General Strike of 1926 made it clear that it had more bark than bite. In 1927, due to Soviet espionage activities, Stanley Baldwin denounced the trade agreement and broke off diplomatic relations. There was even talk of declaring war. And although relations were restored in 1929, persistent mistrust, reinforced by the “purges” in the leadership of the USSR, made closer cooperation impossible - even in the face of the growing fascist threat.

Britain's policy of "appeasement" was hardly designed to bring the Soviet Union closer. During the Spanish Civil War, when Britain, along with other Western countries, did almost nothing to curb Franco and his supporters, the USSR provided support to the long-suffering republic. And then, in August 1939, shortly before the conclusion of the German-Soviet non-aggression pact, which provided for the division of Poland and the Baltic states, negotiations were interrupted between Britain and France, on the one hand, and the Soviet Union, on the other. However, Stalin's policy of containment also failed when Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941.

A sharp turn in British-Soviet relations followed. Churchill, known in the Soviet Union as a militant anti-communist, now became a staunch ally of Stalin, who in the West was known only as a “heartless tyrant”, now in his own way called “Uncle Joe”. The purges stopped in the USSR, although conformism continued to be the dictate of the times. In the United Kingdom, previously despised left-wing intellectuals became welcome guests of the establishment, and propaganda films about the successes of Soviet power, once available only in closed film clubs (or even banned), appeared in wide release.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 led to the formation of an allied coalition and immediately forced Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin to begin intensive negotiations. In a series of conferences that culminated in Yalta, the Big Three determined the strategy for victory and the fate of the post-war world. During an informal meeting with Stalin in October 1944, Churchill concluded the so-called "percentage agreement" on spheres of influence in Eastern Europe: the USSR received 90 percent in Romania, Great Britain - in Greece, and so on.

Roosevelt's death in April 1945 and Churchill's July election defeat heralded the collapse of the Big Three. Moreover, despite the impression made by Churchill's Iron Curtain speech in March 1946, it soon became clear that there were only two superpowers. The Empire was disintegrating, and Britain found its forces too spread thin. And although the Labor Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was as keen as Churchill to maintain the status quo, by 1947 he was forced to admit that Britain was not able to control Greece and the Middle East alone. The onset of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan meant that the center of Western power had moved overseas. Eisenhower reacted to Anthony Eden's attempts to turn back the clock during the Suez crisis with a sharp shout, and Khrushchev with threats.

Meanwhile, the West, led by the United States, could do little in response to calls for help that came from Hungary, Poland and other countries within the Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. After the Chinese Revolution of 1949 and the collapse of the colonial empires, the United States led the ranks of those who tried to contain communism in the Third World, fighting in Korea and Vietnam. When the Cold War nearly turned hot during the Cuban Crisis of 1962, Britain played a minor role in the drama as an orderly for a sabre-rattling crusader. And culturally, it also remained in the background, although several works by British authors were actively promoted by the organizers of the “struggle between the forces of light and darkness.” For example, American organizations and foundations helped market George Orwell's 1984, and Arnold Toynbee's A Study in History was praised by Time magazine as a work comparable in significance to the transition from Ptolemy to Copernicus because it " shattered the icy schemes of historical determinism and materialism, again recognizing the Lord God as the active force of the historical process."

With the advent of “perestroika” in 1985, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made a pleasant discovery: with the new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, the West could do business. True, little came of this, and in 1991 the USSR collapsed. Relations were "normalized" under President Boris Yeltsin, along with reforms in Russia and the subsequent return of the double-headed eagle. At the start of the new millennium, Britain and Russia, represented by Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin, stand closer to each other than at any time since the end of the Second World War.

And today, celebrating the 450th anniversary of the establishment of the first important contacts, can we highlight cloudless periods in the long history of our relations? If ordinary people cannot always live in peace and harmony, then what can we expect from rulers? One cannot, of course, hush up the fact that Russian-British relations were more often negative than positive. Not to mention several wars, there have been at least as many extremely serious crises between us. Moreover, there were significant difficulties in understanding each other. For example, after the end of the Cold War, British universities stopped Russian research programs. But is it more important to understand your enemy than to understand your friend?

The most promising area of ​​interaction seems to be that first mission undertaken by Richard Chancellor four and a half centuries ago. In the era of globalization, it is even more important than in the times of great geographical discoveries, “so that some need others.” And trade relations in the oil and gas field can promote harmony much more effectively than the supply of masts and other goods for building ships.

After 2019, to the west and east of the EU borders there will be two powerful European states that are not members of the European Union. Both the United Kingdom and Russia are permanent members of the UN Security Council, have nuclear weapons and have the world's largest economies. And both will be vitally interested in the stability and success of Europe as a whole.

Editor's note: this text was written before the cancellation of Boris Johnson's visit to Russia

In 1940, Winston Churchill said that: “Russia is an enigma, shrouded in mystery and shrouded in the darkness of the unknown.”

It has always been difficult for the leadership of Western countries to understand the extremely unique essence of Russia. As for Churchill's remark, it is interesting for two reasons.

Firstly, even in 1940 the British Prime Minister referred to Russia as Russia, not the Soviet Union. He understood that under the guise of the “USSR” there was still the same Russian Empire, which had only expanded its borders even further and strengthened since the time of Peter the Great.

Sometimes something similar is said about the United Kingdom. From the point of view of the European Union, we are, especially now, an enigma. According to the EU leadership, our country is exclusively occupied with its own national interests to the detriment of the common cause.

Over the centuries, national interests have brought Britain and Russia closer together as often as they have driven them apart.

We fought together against Napoleon, who sought to enslave Europe. We were allies during the First World War. Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill made up the Big Three, which, despite ideological differences, defeated Hitler in 1945.

However, in the 19th and 20th centuries we were also competitors. India was considered the jewel in the crown of the British Empire, and the advance of Russian borders deep into Central Asia towards Afghanistan was considered by its leadership as a potential threat to British dominance in India.

The command of the British Navy believed that Russia's desire to recapture Constantinople from the Ottoman Empire and control the exit from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea was a threat to Great Britain's dominance of the seas, thanks to which the British Empire felt its power.

Now these fears and aspirations are the property of history, which, however, did not prevent British-Soviet relations from remaining very cool throughout the Cold War.

Unlike Germany, Great Britain never considered the Soviet Union as a major market for its products. It did not need energy supplies from Russia. Situated on an island off the western coast of the European continent, it would be the last to experience the consequences of any war on land in the center of Europe.

All this time, in its geopolitical worldview, Great Britain was closer to the United States and did not attach as much importance to political relations with Moscow as, say, France and Germany.

But there was an exception to this rule in the 80s of the last century, when a meeting between Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev took place. I was present at this meeting.

I remember how much the “Iron Lady” and the member of the Soviet Politburo liked each other, how much their mutual communication made an impression on them, although they agreed on little with each other. Over time, they began to trust each other. Thatcher told Reagan that Gorbachev “can be dealt with.” And the rest, as they say, is history.

The fact that Thatcher was able to get along with Gorbachev, and the historical consequences of their mutual communication, indicate that there is simply no compelling reason why the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation could not, despite their differences, establish close and constructive relations with each other.

The absence of such over the past ten years is the result of some kind of emergency, as well as deepening disagreements between Russia and the West over Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and other issues.

The “extraordinary incident” was the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006. At the time of his death, Litvinenko was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

No one in Britain doubts that the order to kill Litvinenko came from Moscow. Attempts to improve bilateral relations were marred by Russian authorities' refusal to allow a proper investigation and the election of Litvinenko's alleged killer to the State Duma.

But now, it seems to me, the UK government is seriously interested in making 2017 the starting point for improving bilateral relations and establishing more constructive cooperation between the two countries. An important diplomatic event will be the planned visit to Moscow of Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

As Johnson prepares to visit Russia, he has no particular illusions. In a recent interview, he said: “I wouldn’t say I’m bursting with optimism. The hope for a reset in relations with Russia is common to every new foreign minister, every new prime minister and every new president. But every time they are disappointed. I have no reason to think that this time everything will be different.”

Interestingly, in the same interview, Johnson said: “Russia must at least hint that it is worthy of trust.” As already mentioned in this article, it was precisely the feeling of trust that arose between Thatcher and Gorbachev. And without trust, the Cold War would not have found its peaceful end. Therefore, Russia and the West will not be able to resolve their current differences without restoring at least a small amount of trust.

According to Johnson, Britain and Russia should be brought together by issues such as restoring stability in Syria and the Middle East and the need to take steps to ensure the nuclear non-proliferation regime, which have become relevant in connection with the actions of North Korea.

Clear and unambiguous evidence is also needed that Russia will respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine and will ensure the peaceful reunification of Donetsk and Lugansk with it. The situation with Crimea is more complicated, but as with the Baltic states after 1940, its forced annexation by Russia will never be recognized as legal.

However, there are other issues on which Russia and Britain can act as natural allies. Both countries have been attacked by Islamic terrorists and jihadi militants and must find new ways to cooperate. They have taken joint action in Afghanistan in the past. There is a wide range of cultural, economic and political problems, which are best addressed through dialogue and joint projects.

In connection with Brexit and the exit of Great Britain from the European Union, new opportunities for cooperation are opening up. After 2019, to the west and east of the EU borders there will be two powerful European states that are not members of the European Union. Both the United Kingdom and Russia are permanent members of the UN Security Council, have nuclear weapons and have the world's largest economies. And both will be vitally interested in the stability and success of Europe as a whole.

Of course, the UK will maintain closer ties with EU countries, in particular France and Germany. These ties will be carried out not only through NATO: new opportunities and, probably, structures will appear that will ensure the closest cooperation between Western European countries in the field of pursuing a common foreign policy.

Britain had already proven in 1914 and 1939 that whenever the stability and freedom of continental Europe were threatened, the military, economic and political resources of the United Kingdom would be brought to the service of those who sought to preserve or regain freedom.

Over the centuries, we have also proven that we are a pragmatic country, ready to cooperate with other countries when there are common interests. And the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation have vital common interests.

If trust is restored between the leaders of both countries, if trust is restored with the leaders of other countries in Europe and North America, then together we can achieve a lot, and this will benefit our people and our countries as a whole.