“It is utterly insulting for grown-up people, like the British or American electorate, to think that they could be influenced from abroad, especially by Russia.” So says Alexander Kramarenko, the Russian Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the UK.  He is refuting the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election and, despite his quiet and collected tone, his refutation is not brilliantly convincing.

He is, however, unperturbed by the sensitive nature of the questions. Sensing the need to be a little more provocative, I ask Kramarenko if the (alleged) hacking creates a precedent for Russia to interfere in the democratic processes of other nations, and if the British electorate should be concerned about the integrity of their forthcoming election.

Calmly, Kramarenko proceeds: “There were instances of hacking, but this has been a common phenomenon over the past few years. It is difficult to trace it to a particular government body. Certainly it could be done, but the accusations against the Russian government have got to be based on some hard evidence. And, as I understand, there is none.” 

He also attempts to turn the question into a veiled attack on the state of the US democracy.  “What is interesting is that hacking in a democratic process - which is supposed to be an open, straight-forward discourse between politicians and the electorate - should not work.  If  [a democracy] is not that open and straight-forward, then certainly hacking could do something to that process.  But if [an election] is done in an ideal fashion, then no hacking can distort it.”

“Nobody denies that there is a problem with corruption in Russia"

I switch the conversation to corruption in Russia, which remains notoriously rife, and to the subject of Bill Browder.  Browder is a British citizen and author of Red Notice, an exposé on Russian corruption.  He is also a notorious enemy of Putin; in the book, he claims that Putin has amassed a personal wealth of $200 billion, making him richest individual in the world.

“Nobody denies that there is a problem with corruption in Russia. Like any society, it has become sharper in most countries over the past twenty years – maybe because of what has taken place within the financial sector.” 

I initially assume that Kramarenko has deftly sidestepped the Browder question, as he continues to discuss Russian corruption. However, despite his apparent reluctance, the ambassador takes the bait.

“With regards to Bill Browder, I think his analysis [of Russian corruption] is very much personal, because he benefitted a lot from the wild capitalism in Russia in the 1990s. We know that he has been lobbying hard over the past few years here in Britain, and in America, but my personal view is that he benefited to a large extent from corruption in Russia in the past.” 

This is a valid response; Browder has been described as having “some of the best capitalist instincts” in business. He made his fortune from assets (worth $4.5 billion) under the management of his firm, Hermitage Capital, by taking advantage of the state of “wild capitalism” which Kramarenko describes.

Nonetheless, Kramarenko diplomatically ignores my probing about Putin’s personal fortune  and the apparently irreconcilable fact that his salary is approximately $130,000 per annum, but he is able to frequently cruise on his $35 million yacht and visit his $1 billion palace on the Black Sea. I press Kramarenko again.

 “We come across information – or, as I should say, disinformation – or data, or allegations of  that sort once in a while. I think [those inferences] have been denied by the Kremlin and we haven’t seen any hard evidence of [wrong-doing]. You see, it is like fake news: it is easy to throw it into the infosphere, but it takes a lot of time to refute it. But nobody cares [when it is refuted] because it is already out there. It is easy to just allege something publicly.” 

"In this particular case, Putin is an enemy; Russia is an enemy because Putin is President; and Russia is called Putin’s Russia. Why Putin’s Russia? It’s also my Russia!"

The Ambassador continues on this theme of generating ‘news’ to reaffirm a pre-established idea: “It’s what they call demonisation.  Part of the affinity Donald Trump felt with Vladimir Putin was that he was equally demonised by the elites in the West. Certainly, demonisation creates the narrative of an enemy.” 

“In this particular case, Putin is an enemy; Russia is an enemy because Putin is President; and Russia is called Putin’s Russia. Why Putin’s Russia? It’s also my Russia!”  I sense that the ambassador’s intended meaning is lost in the irony of that statement.

On the subject of Eastern European geopolitics and military alliances, Kramarenko tells me “there is no war on the agenda” and that he sees Russia as a stabilising influence in Eastern Europe, despite the situation in Crimea. 

“If you remember, when there were previous waves of expansion of the EU, they were preceded by trilateral consultations between Russia, Brussels and the prospective members of the EU on the matters of what to do about our bilateral trade and economic relationship when they become members of the EU.” 

Uncharacteristically animated, and with a hint of aggression, Kramarenko holds accountable a handful of individuals to explain Russia’s territorial conquest of the Crimea—a sovereign entity of Ukraine.

“Those [trilateral consultations] were totally ignored by people. I can name them: Victoria Nuland [senior US diplomat], Radoslaw Sirkorski [senior Polish politician] and Carl Bildt [former Prime Minister of Sweden], whom I personally hold responsible for this entire Ukrainian misadventure.” 

Interview: Stephen Fry

Finally, Kramarenko defends Russia’s democratic progress: “We are not an autocracy or theocracy, but certainly there are differences between various democracies” and segues into an attack on the “Americanisation of the British political process under Tony Blair”.  He claims that this “had the effect of hollowing out of the substance of the [democratic] process, and that’s why there was war in Iraq and some of the other irresponsible decisions of the Tony Blair government”. 

He concludes that Russia is “moving in the right direction, given our history.” I can’t help but wonder whose history that might be, and who will become history because of it.