> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Russia Says It Would Take a Call From Britain’s Military
- URL: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/russia-says-would-take-call-britains-military/
- Published: 2026-11-12T10:49:49.000Z
- Updated: 2026-11-12T10:49:49.000Z
- Description: Moscow said it would speak with British defense officials if London calls. Britain wants direct military contact to reduce the risk of miscalculation, but neither side has announced a formal channel.
- Author: News Desk
- Tags: Military

Russia said Wednesday that its Defense Ministry would speak with British defense officials if London initiated contact, responding to a British proposal for more direct communication between the two militaries. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova made the remarks after Britain’s defense secretary, Wes Streeting, said he wanted additional channels to reduce the risk of a confrontation caused by miscalculation.

Neither government announced a call, a permanent channel or a timetable. Zakharova’s response, reported by [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/russia-says-military-to-military-contacts-with-britain-are-possible-if-london-2026-11-11/?ref=theamericanquorum.com) and [Sky News](https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-war-latest-12541713?postid=6278469&ref=theamericanquorum.com), put the next move on London. It also left open whether officials were considering one conversation or a regular means for military leaders to reach one another when an incident occurs.

## London wants a channel alongside its embassy

Streeting said in a [Financial Times](https://www.ft.com/content/4b3272a6-5d87-426a-9e2f-5428c10e7eea?ref=theamericanquorum.com) interview published Tuesday that Britain’s embassy in Moscow remained an important point of contact. He said he would prefer additional communication directly between the militaries. The suggestion was about reducing the risk of misunderstanding, rather than changing British policy toward Russia’s war in Ukraine. Britain remains a supporter of Kyiv and has backed sanctions against Russia.

The Financial Times reported that no serving British defense secretary or chief of the defense staff had spoken with a Russian counterpart since 2022, and that previous British efforts to restore senior contacts had been rebuffed. A British defense source told [Sky News](https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-war-latest-12541713?postid=6278469&ref=theamericanquorum.com) that communication could reduce misunderstandings but cautioned against treating the Russian response as a sign of warmer relations. An ability to reach an official and an agreement on the policy dispute are separate things.

## Two accounts of how contact broke down

Zakharova blamed London for closing military channels, pointing to Britain’s expulsion of Russia’s defense attaché in 2024\. She disputed the reason Britain gave for the move, according to [Reuters reporting](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/russia-says-military-to-military-contacts-with-britain-are-possible-if-london-2026-11-11/?ref=theamericanquorum.com). The British government said at the time that the attaché was an undeclared military intelligence officer. Its [May announcement](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-expel-undeclared-russian-spy-in-response-to-growing-threat?ref=theamericanquorum.com) described the expulsion as part of a wider set of measures that included visa restrictions and removal of diplomatic status from some Russian properties.

The governments’ accounts differ on why contacts deteriorated. They also refer to different points in time. The Financial Times described a lack of contact between the most senior defense officials since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022\. Zakharova pointed to the later expulsion of a military diplomat. The exchange this week did not say whether London would seek to restore the attaché relationship, use an existing diplomatic route to arrange a call or propose something separate.

## A precedent for limiting accidents at sea

The two countries have previously negotiated ways to reduce the danger of military encounters. A [parliamentary review](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5802/ldselect/ldintagr/44/4404.htm?ref=theamericanquorum.com) describes an agreement between Britain and the Soviet Union signed in 1986 to prevent incidents at sea beyond territorial waters, and a later protocol negotiated with Russia to update it. That agreement addresses how forces behave when they encounter each other. The current proposal, as described by Streeting, is about having another way for officials to communicate.

The distinction matters because a conversation between defense officials would not settle disputes over where the two countries can operate. The British parliamentary review noted that the earlier agreement’s geographic scope did not extend to encounters inside territorial waters. The issue this week is narrower: whether a direct channel could make it easier to clarify what happened after an encounter and to keep an incident from escalating while the underlying dispute remains unresolved.

## What to watch for next

Britain is also strengthening maritime cooperation with allies. The government [announced Tuesday](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-royal-navy-led-northern-navies-initiative?ref=theamericanquorum.com) that the Royal Navy and other members of the Joint Expeditionary Force had signed a new initiative to coordinate northern European maritime defense. That agreement concerns cooperation among partners, while the proposed contact with Russia would deal with communication across opposing sides. The governments have not tied one initiative to the other.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte put the wider maritime concerns in public terms at the [Atlantic forum](https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/events/transcripts/2026/11/11/keynote-speech-by-the-nato-secretary-general-at-the-atlantic-future-forum?ref=theamericanquorum.com) on Wednesday. He cited threats to undersea cables in the Baltic and the importance of protecting shipping routes. His speech addressed what NATO members could do together; he did not announce a role for the alliance in any British contact with Moscow. The distinction matters because a channel arranged by two defense ministries would not necessarily give other allies a direct line or change NATO’s own policy toward Russia.

The immediate step would be a confirmed contact or an announcement that officials had agreed who could speak to whom. A durable arrangement would require more than an exchange of public statements. Neither side has said which officials would take part, whether the channel would remain open during a crisis or what incidents it would cover. For now, Moscow has said it would answer a call, and London has described why it wants another line of communication.