The British Government had been trying to deport Zatuliveter, who had had an affair with her employer – the British MP Mike Hancock – on the grounds that allowing her to remain in the UK would not be “conducive to the public good”.

In its report (available in full here and well worth reading), the Special Immigration Appeals Commission explained its conclusion

“Our conclusion, at least on the balance of probabilities, is that she was and is not a Russian agent. Even if she was approached in Russia by the FSB/SVR, we have seen nothing which satisfies us that she was recruited as an agent or was tasked, or acted, as one. We have not reached that conclusion by a narrow margin. We are satisfied that it is significantly more likely than not that she was and is not a Russian agent. We cannot exclude the possibility that we have been gulled – but, if we have been, it has been by a supremely competent and rigorously trained operative. That does not fit all that we know about the appellant’s age, background and characteristics. Accordingly, we allow this appeal.”

In its verdict, the Commission stressed its belief that Zatuliveter’s relationships with politicians and senior European NATO officials had indeed been genuine relationships and that, although Russia would certainly have been interested in her had it been aware of her activities, there was absolutely no evidence to indicate, even on balance of probabilities, that she was in the employ of the Russian Government.

The judgement is widely seen as a humiliation for MI5 and the British Government – an indication either that it cannot properly identify a Russian spy, or that it is unable to force Russian spies to leave the country.

In its report, the Commission went out of its way to note that it believed that there had been grounds to pursue the case, and that MI5’s investigation had been thorough and competent. But it’s difficult to agree with this assessment when you consider the following, as reported by British newspaper the Guardian:

“An MI5 witness cited Zatuliveter’s visit to the Tricycle Theatre in north London to see The Great Game, a series of plays on Britain and Russia’s historical relationship with Afghanistan, as evidence of her spying activities. The witness apologised when it was put to her that The Great Game had “nothing to do with spying”, explaining that she had heard the phrase was coined by Rudyard Kipling in his book, Kim.”

Adding to the British Government’s embarrassment is the fact that one of the members of the panel that reached today’s verdict was Sir Stephen Lander, who was a previous head of MI5, the British intelligence agency that sought to have Zatuliveter sent back to Russia.

There is no news yet about whether Zatuliveter plans to remain in the UK, or if she just wished to prove the point, but her lawyers told reporters: “Today in its historic decision the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has cleared Katia and cancelled the deportation order. Katia is definitely very glad with the ruling and hopes to leave behind this episode.”

British court: “Zatuliveter not a Russian spy” is a post from: Siberian Light

Early Origins

The Tuploev Bear is a large, four engine strategic bomber and missile platform and it has now seen over sixty years of service as a vital part of the country’s air force. The Bear completed its first flight in 1954 and entered service in 1956.

Its design was carried out by Andrei Tupolev himself and the plane was seen as a natural evolution from its predecessor, 1949’s TU 85. As such, the correct name for the aircraft is the Tupolev 95 – ‘Bear’ being its NATO reporting name.

Design Specifics

The Tupolev Bear was unique when it was built as it was the only active aircraft to use turbo prop engines. The other main distinctive feature is its swept back wings which make the Bear easily identifiable.

The wings bend back to an angle of 35 degrees and they were based on another early Tupolev aircraft, the TU-16.

Another feature that sets this aircraft apart from others is the noise. The speed and altitude that the Tu95 flies at means that the propellers rotate at faster than the speed of sound and this makes it the nosiest military plane in the world. A stealth bomber this is not!

Active Service

When the Bear first flew back in the mid 1950’s the Cold War was at its height and its early roles included vital maritime surveillance of US naval vessels.

The Bear was easily identifiable to the US military, whose instructions were to intercept it whenever it approached within a 200 mile radius of aircraft carriers and escort it away from NATO airspace.

Over the years, the TU-95 became something of a Cold War icon and it engaged in regular demonstration flights starting from the Kola Peninsular and taking in the Western US coastline and a sightseeing trip to Cuba along the way.

Nuclear Capability

Perhaps the Bear’s greatest achievement during its early years was also its most worrying. In 1961 it carried the heaviest and most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated.

The AN602, Tsar Bomba was only ever built once and it was the job of the TU-95  to carry it to its final destination, the Novaya Zemlya Archipelago where it was successfully detonated.

The Tupolev Bear today

The Cold War may be over and the Soviet Union a thing of the past but the Bear has still been engaging in some antagonistic activity in recent times.

In July 2011, two TU-95’s flew over the northeast Pacific Ocean and the Sea of Japan during an 11 hour flight and had to be escorted by Japanese fighters for part of the way.

And, back in 2007 there was a brief flurry of interest from the British media as it emerged that the British airforce was regularly having to scramble its jets to intercept what were dubbed as Russian spy planes.

The Tupolev Bear is a great feat of Russian engineering but it seems that the country’s military just can’t help but show it off. And, given that it’s scheduled to stay in service until at least 2040, it’s likely that we’ll see it popping up in excitable Western news reports for quite some time to come.

Tupolev Bear – Linchpin of Russia’s Air Force is a post from: Siberian Light

According to the latest Comscore report, 50.8 million Russians have access to the internet through either a home or work connection. This means that, for the first time, Russia has more internet users than Germany, which falls back to second place with 50.1 million users. It also pulls further ahead of France and Britain (42.3 million and 37.2 million users respectively).

Experts are bullish for the prospects of further growth in the Russian internet industry, noting that a great deal of work is underway to extend the country’s broadband networks. And, when you consider that Russia’s population is almost twice that of the next largest European country, the prospects for growth seem impressive. From reports, though, it appears that the Russian internet model will be based largely on mobile internet access – of the 91 million Russian internet users that GP Bullhound predict for 2013, 71 million are likely to have 3G access.

Some analysts have noted concerns that, although Russia has a large number of internet users, they do not use the internet as much or as regularly as users elsewhere in Europe, a problem which may present difficulties for Russian companies seeking to turn a profit from Russian internet users.

The Comcast data presents a mixed picture here. Russian internet users are typically online for an average of 22.4 hours per month, which is well behind some countries with advanced online economies (for example, the internet addicts of the UK, who spend more than 35 hours a month online), but is only just behind the European average of 26.4 hours per month. In fact, Russian usage is higher than some countries that you would expect to spend a lot of time – Denmark, for example, where the average user spends just 22.2 hours a month online.

According to Alexa, when not searching the web using yandex.ru, google.ru or google.com, Russians spend most of their time on social networking sites, just like everyone else in Europe. The main difference, though, being that in Russia facebook.com is only the third most popular network, behind both vkontakte.ru and odnoklassniki.ru.

But it seems that, although starting from a low base because of the weaker Russian economy, the Russian online economy is following similar patterns to those in the rest of Europe and the United States. Earlier this month it was reported that Russian online advertising has grown by more than 50% and that, as a result, the industry is now larger than the Russian print advertising industry. In the third quarter of 2011, sales of online advertising in Russia were worth over $300 million – a figure which, if followed through over a twelve month period, would make it a billion dollar industry.

Further recommended reading – the Financial Times blog reports on the prospects for Russia’s biggest internet companies to grow their incomes, and Forbes reports on a press conference held by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales in which he noted that outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was the only world leader who truly understands the internet. Wales told reporters that:

“Unfortunately, Sarkozy’s view on the internet is that it must be controlled and regulated. And at the G8 meeting, President Medvedev was the only leader to say something sensible whatsoever. So I think the headline of the story should be that Jimmy Wales says that President Medvedev is the only world leader who actually understands the internet.”

It’s a view that might surprise some in the Russian political sphere, given the occasional high profile arrest of a Russian blogger. However, it’s worth noting that the most dynamic political sphere in Russia today seems to be online, so perhaps Jimmy Wales has the right idea…

Russia is Europe’s largest internet market is a post from: Siberian Light

A clear pattern is emerging – Zatuliveter has, or is alleged to have, had affairs with senior politicians and diplomats each with an interest in Russian affairs and/or European security.

• Hancock, of course, had a keen interest in Russian affairs as the head of the British Parliament’s All Party Group on Russia and was also a member of Parliament’s Defence Select Committee.
• The German NATO official, who a British court has ordered cannot be named, was also a specialist in Russian affairs – a 56 year old grandfather who, according to RIA Novosti, “specialized in security issues covering Russia and Europe“.  (An amusing aside – the only known picture of this diplomat, which I’ve published here, has him dressed in a banana suit with his face censored.)
• And the Dutch diplomat, who also cannot be named,  is reported by the Telegraph to have worked in both Moscow and St Petersburg.

British newspaper the Daily Telegraph broke the story, after their request to the court hearing Zatuliveter’s case to be able to name the two European diplomats was rejected on the, frankly, rather odd basis of preventing possible damage to “international relations”.

The importance of this news is difficult to assess at the moment. Although British MP Hancock resigned from the Defence Select Committee last month after compelling evidence was produced of his sexual relationship with Zatuliveter, the careers of the other two diplomats don’t seem to have suffered as much. Both are still employed by their respective foreign ministries – the German diplomat has since been promoted and the Dutch diplomat now works as an advisor to the Dutch Royal Family.  It may be because they are less in the public eye than Hancock, but could also be because there is not much truth to the allegations – perhaps Zatuliveter is simply someone who happens to attracted to older men who employ her and who happens to be Russian working in the field of European security and politics at a time when paranoia about Russian spies is reaching new heights.

Regardless, Zatuliveter’s case drags on into its second year, bringing into question why the British Government finds it so difficult to deport people it thinks are spies.

Zatuliveter ‘spy’ had multiple honeytrap style affairs is a post from: Siberian Light

HMS Belfast saw service across the globe during the Second World War – notably it is the last surviving ship that took part in protecting the Arctic Convoys that delivered supplies to the Soviet Union under the Lend Lease programme. Decommissioned in the 1960s, HMS Belfast is now an iconic part of London’s River Thames – it is moored as a museum ship between London Bridge and Tower Bridge. If you’ve ever taken a trip along the river you will almost certainly have seen it.

However, it’s an ageing WW2 battle ship, and in need of fairly regular maintenance just to keep afloat. Most recently, corrosion on its two masts was discovered, requiring the replacement of both. The Imperial War Museum, which operates the HMS Belfast museum wasn’t able to find the funds for repairs, until Russian companies, aware of the PR value of repairing a ship that helped to support the Soviet war effort, stepped in to help.

The companies – OPK, Severstal and Sovcomflot – have offered to fund the full repair of the masts, and a crew of contractors are currently working on board the ship. The eleven contractors, all from St Petersburg, are expected to spend three weeks working on the repairs. Elena Kirichek, a paint specialist with over 30 years of experience of working on Soviet and Russian ships told reporters that:

“It’s very interesting to see this vessel being preserved for future generations. It has been an honour for us to make our own contribution to the preservation of this wonderful ship.”

According to the London Evening Standard Newspaper, half of the contractors taking part in the work have decided to sleep on board HMS Belfast, which marks the first time in nearly 50 years that her cabins have been used.

Russian Company sponsors repair of HMS Belfast is a post from: Siberian Light

Annoyingly, the story is behind the Times’ firewall (you can access it here if you are a subscriber), and they’re the only newspaper to pick up the story so far.  According to the Times, Katia Zatuliveter is an assistant working for Mike Hancock, a Liberal Democrat MP (so now a member of the Government) who has served for many years on the Defence Select Committee.

The source for the story seems to have been a ‘friend’ of Zatuliveter’s, who told the British newspaper that the two of them had been “interrogated” as they returned from a recent holiday.

“They knew we were coming back from Split.  They had our names so they probably were listening to our phones”

“They are really putting pressure on Katia [...] She has to meet them sometimes and they told her they will remove her visa and deport her if she doesn’t co-operate.”

Zatuliveter has a solid background in international politics ( a Peace Studies degree from a British University – a course I almost took many years ago) and she’s published a number of papers on international security (see this Google search) .  According to her ‘friend’, MI5 are probably worried that she’s off having affairs with “interesting men”.  She told the times that Zatuliveter is

“[...]clever and good looking.  She works in interesting paces and she had maybe affairs with interesting men”.

I can see why the Times are running this story in the fallout from the discovery of the Russian spy ring in America – including, of course, British citizen Anna Chapman.  But, seriously, this is pushing things a little far, don’t you think?  The concerned friend who tells about how her friend might be thought to be a spy and having affairs with “interesting men”.

Zatuliveter herself apparently told the Times that the interview she had was nothing more than routine – foreign visitors are questioned by immigration authorities at British airports pretty regularly, especially when they need a visa to enter the country.

About the only information the Times could find about Zatuliveter that might indicate that something odd was happening was that her Facebook profile had changed from a picture of her on a beach to a picture of a “heart on fire” (hence the picture at the top of this post) and that she’d blocked public access to her friends list (although they all seemed to be available when I checked earlier this morning).

Pretty thin stuff, to be honest. If I had to bet money, I’d say that this is all about a friend getting over-excited and trying to protect her friend from an imaginary foe, or a ‘friend’ who really doesn’t like her all that much and wants to stir trouble.  Zatuliveter still has her job with MP Mike Hancock.  It’ll be interesting to see how this develops, but I’d be surprised if she doesn’t still have her job in six months time…

Russian working in UK parliament thought spy by MI5? is a post from: Siberian Light

Flights from Heathrow to Moscow run at least twice per day, and sometimes as many as four times per day. Flights from Heathrow to St Petersburg and from Gatwick to St Petersburg only operate once per week from each airport.

Aeroflot Russian airlines also operates a large number of other flights into and out of London. It flies to and from Bangkok (three times per week), Beijing four times per week), Delhi (daily), Hong Kong (four times per week), Khabarovsk (twice a week), Shangai (four times per week), Seoul (three times per week), Tehran (three times per week), Tokyo (twice a week), and Ulan Bator (weekly). All in all, it would be fair to say that London is a major hub for Aeroflot airlines.

Almost all flights are using Aeroflot’s modern fleet of Airbus jets (usually the Airbus A321), with the occasional flight using a Boeing.

Aeroflot has a first class lounge at London Heathrow, which (if you have a first class ticket, naturally) you are free to enjoy. Offices with fax, telephone and internet access are available, as are newspapers, television and complementary drinks (soft and alcoholic).

Since October 2009, Aeroflot passengers flying into or out of London Heathrow, or London Gatwick, are able to take advantage of the new Aeroflot online check in system. This can be used from 24 hours before takeup, right up until 90 minutes before departure.

The Aeroflot London office address is 70 Piccadilly Street, London W1J 8HP. If you want to visit in person, the closest Tube station (Underground station or Metro Station) is Green Park, although it is also within walking distance of Piccadilly. The can be contacted by telephone on 0207355 2233, or by email – infres@aeroflot.co.uk Their website is aeroflot.co.uk

If you found this article useful, you may also be interested to read our articles on Aeroflot booking procedures, and about the Aeroflot Baggage Allowance (beware – Aeroflot’s baggage allowance for flights to and from Europe is much less generous than the allowance on its US flights).

Aeroflot UK is a post from: Siberian Light

According to the report in the Times newspaper, agents think only al-Qaeda related terrorism and Iran nuclear development pose greater risks.

Interestingly, no particular reasons are given as to why Russia is such a great threat to British security, so I thought I’d run through a whistlestop tour of what I think are the key threats that the security services think Russia poses to Britain today.

Energy security

In a world of rising oil and gas prices, it should come as no surprise that everyone is worrying about how they can ensure a reliable future supply of energy.

Russia supplies a fairly small, but growing proportion of Britain’s energy needs, and nobody wants to be at the mercy of a country that is prone to cutting off oil and gas supplies to make political points. Particularly when, as was the case recently, cuts in supply to Ukraine mean effective, but unintended cuts for European countries further along the pipeline network.

Currently, energy security probably isn’t the biggest Russian threat that Britain faces, but it’s a growing one and one that security watchers will be keeping a close eye on.

Risk to British military & peacekeeping activity

Russia is – rather like Britain at times – a mid-sized power that hasn’t quite grasped that its glory days are behind it. Like most countries, it likes to meddle in the affairs of others but, because of its relative weakness, it’s influence tends towards the irritatingly destructive rather than the constructive.

Two particular areas that Russia likes to meddle in are the Balkans and Central Asia. And British troops are stationed in both of these areas.

Instability in Kosovo, which Russia sometimes doesn’t seem to worried about provoking, could potentially lead to attacks on British troops in the area or, at the extreme draw British troops into another local conflict.

Meanwhile, instability in Tajikistan doesn’t help the security situation in Afghanistan, where Britain has almost 8,000 troops stationed. (Of course, the flip side of this is that Russia could argue that NATO is prolonging instability in Afghanistan, indirectly endangering Russia’s 7,000 strong military presence there…).

Russians in Britain

There are currently more than 300,000 Russians living and working in the UK. Worries are growing that they bring their disputes with them and oftentimes will settle them in a manner that is outside the law and rarely involves a nice cup of tea (polonium flavoured tea excepted, naturally).

Russian criminal gangs are also active in London – money laundering is one of their specialties – and I’d imagine this takes up quite a bit of the security services’ time, not to mention the police’s. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it turned out that at least some of the funding intended for terrorist groups in the UK came via Russian criminal groups. (This isn’t to say that the Russian government is sponsoring terrorism in the UK – more that criminals don’t really worry too much where their money comes from).

Russian spies

The Telegraph reports that there are 30 known Russian spies operating in Britain – that’s the equivalent of one in five of the official Russian mission in London.

Keeping tabs on them is, if you believe the security services, more challenging than monitoring other countries’ agents. Instead of just checking they don’t steal secrets, the security service have to watch them in case they assassinate someone else: “Russia is a country which is under suspicion of committing murder on British streets and it must be assumed that having done it once they will do it again,” said the “senior security services source” quoted by the Telegraph.

Direct military threat

There’s been plenty of coverage of the large numbers of Tu-95 bombers flying around UK airspace recently. The chances of them launching an actual attack are, of course, pretty much zero – can you imagine a Tu-95 making a run at Buckingham Palace? But, even though Tu-95 flights give the RAF some much needed practice, there will always be the concern that so many encounters might result in a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.

Is Russia really the 3rd biggest threat to British security?

I must confess, when I originally read the article, my first thought was that it was over-excitable journalism, feeding on current British paranoia about Russia. Yes, Russia presents a threat to British security, I thought, but it’s not really that great a threat.

Then I sat down and thought through a few of the reasons why we might need to be concerned about Russia and came up with the rough and ready list above. It’s not a huge list of concerns, and it’s certainly not end of the world stuff, but add it all together and I can see why the British security services believe that Russia poses a fairly large threat to British security.

And then I thought – what countries or organisations pose a greater threat to British security than Russia, and why? And, other than al-Qaeda and Iran, who have already been noted, I couldn’t think of any. Can anyone else?

Image credit

Russia is 3rd biggest threat to British security is a post from: Siberian Light

British RAF planes intercept Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers once a week, reports populist British newspaper The Sun.

The enterprising paper filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the British Ministry of Defence which revealed that, during the seven months to January 2008, RAF interceptors were sent up to meet Russian bombers 28 times. For comparison, during the previous 6 months, RAF interceptors were scrambled just twice.

The Sun is, of course, righteously indignant at the cost to the good old British taxpayer. According to them, it costs approximately �30,000 ($60,000) per hour to keep an RAF fighter in the air. They’ve calculated that, over the past seven months, the RAF has spent more than �3.5 million ($7 million) to meet the Russian threat.

Buried mid-way through the article is the news that none of the Russian bombers have entered British airspace and, in truth, almost all of the contacts have been over the Artic or the North Sea. You would never know this from the article’s title though – “Hey you, get off of our cloud”.

Or from the over-worked ‘senior RAF source who reports exactly what Russian command want to hear:

�We have to take these bombers seriously, just in case. It runs us ragged.�

I’m sure the RAF are quite right to intercept Russian bombers flying near British airspace – they are after all, flying very close – but it’s indicative of the poor press Russia is getting at the moment that hysterical over-reaction is now becoming the norm.

If you want to see the impact reporting like this is having on many in the British public, take a look at the comments to The Sun article.

Oh, and two more quick thoughts before I go. I wonder how much it’s costing the Russian air force to send these bombers out? Probably not as much as the British RAF. And, finally… I wonder if the Russian Air Force would tell me how much it costs if I were to ask???

Britain intercepts Russian bombers every week is a post from: Siberian Light

According to the BBC, the British Council are to release a statement later today:

A formal statement from the director of the British Council is expected on Thursday.

Sources have told the BBC there does not appear to be much appetite for retaliation at the Foreign Office, where there is a recognition that Britain has few options left in the row.

Each and every Russian member of staff at the British Council was either questioned yesterday by the FSB, or received a late-night home visit from an interior ministry official. They were apparently told in no uncertain terms that their jobs were illegal, and that if they continued to work for the British Council, they would be breaking the law.

The British Council, in their statement, are likely to stress that their decision was motivated by a desire to ensure the safety of their staff – and quite rightly so. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Council’s British staff can just go home at the end of this dispute – the Council’s Russian staff have to stay and face any consequences.

One thing that hasn’t been raised is what the immediate future of Russian British Council staff members – I’m sure the Council will do what it can fothem, but in the very near future, they will officially lose their jobs, and their monthly paychecks.

Overall, I agree with the British Council’s decision at this point. Any responsible employer would do the same. The British Council played the hand they were dealt as well as they could, but ultimately it was a weak hand – the Russian government held all the aces.

According to the BBC, the British Council plan to take the ‘moral high ground’ over this issue – to stress that this is Russia’s loss, rather than Britain’s.

This may play on the international stage but, on the Russian domestic stage, I think this will look very much like a victory for Russia, and a triumph for Putin and Medvedev in the run up to March’s Presidential election.

Update: Both the British Council and British Foreign Minister David Miliband have issued statements on the issue. Here are a couple of hefty excerpts:

British Council statement (pdf):

At the start of this week the Russian Government initiated a campaign of intimidation against our staff in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg.

On Tuesday 15 January, the Russian State Security Services (FSB) summoned over 20 Russian staff to attend individual interviews.

Late that night 10 members of staff were visited at home by the Russian tax police and called to further interviews yesterday.

The interviews had little to do with their work and were clearly aimed at exerting undue pressure on innocent individuals.

Our paramount consideration is the wellbeing of our staff and I feel we cannot continue our work without significant risk to them.

David Miliband statement to Parliament:

The Russian security services summoned over 20 locally-engaged members of British Council staff in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg one by one for interviews. 10 members of staff were interviewed late at night in their homes after calls by the Russian tax police. Questioning ranged from the institutional status of the British Council to personal questions about the health and welfare of family pets.

Mr Speaker, these Russian citizens have chosen to offer their skills and hard work to promote cultural contact between the people of Russia and the UK. As a result, they have been the subject of blatant intimidation from their own government.

Mr Speaker, I think the whole House will agree that such actions are reprehensible, not worthy of a great country, and contrary to the letter and spirit of the legal framework under which the British Council operates – notably international law, including the Vienna Conventions, and the UK/Russia 1994 bilateral agreement on cultural cooperation which Russia has ratified.

Russia has failed to show any legal reasons under Russian or international law why the British Council should not continue to operate. Russia has also failed to substantiate its claims that the British Council is avoiding paying tax. The British Council is in fact registered for tax in Russia and has complied with all requests of the tax authorities in respect of its activities. Therefore, instead of taking legal action against the Council, they have resorted to intimidation of the Council’s staff.

Later on in his statement, Miliband (correctly, but rather smugly, it seemed to me) outlined the moral high ground that Britain plans to occupy:

We regard as entirely separate issues Mr Litvinenko’s murder and the activities of the British Council to build up links between British and Russian schools and universities, to support English language teaching in Russia and Russian studies in the UK, and to promote the best of British drama, writing, music, and art.

Nor do we believe that cultural activities should become a political football; in fact educational and cultural activities are important ways of bringing people together. That is why I have decided not to take similar action against Russia’s cultural activities in the UK, for example by sending back Russian masterpieces scheduled for show at the Royal Academy, or by taking measures against the two Russian diplomats at the Russian Embassy dedicated to cultural work.

We have nothing to fear from these contacts; we welcome and encourage them.

Russia 'wins' British Council battle? is a post from: Siberian Light