They said the diplomats’ had been expelled in August “following action taken by the UK government in response to Russian state-directed activity across Europe and in the UK”.
“We are unapologetic about protecting our national interests,” the spokesperson added.
The FSB claimed the Eastern Europe and Central Asia branch of the Foreign Office was now a “special service whose main task is to inflict a strategic defeat on our country”.
He said it would “significantly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict” and “mean that NATO countries, US, European countries are at war with Russia“.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:15
Putin: ‘It will mean the direct participation of NATO.’
British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and US President Joe Biden will meet in Washington on Friday with a decision on approving the missiles believed to be imminent.
“Russia started this conflict. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Russia could end this conflict straight away,” he told reporters.
“Ukraine has the right to self-defence and we’ve obviously been absolutely fully supportive of Ukraine’s right to self-defence – we’re providing training capability, as you know,” said the prime minister
“But we don’t seek any conflict with Russia – that’s not our intention in the slightest.”
Kremlin ‘punishes’ UK – but timing of announcement is interesting
The very public expulsion by Russia of six British diplomats in Moscow, accused of involvement in spying and sabotage, is a way for the Kremlin to punish London.
Revoking the accreditation of diplomats is a tool that all countries can use to attack each other or send signals of anger.
The UK expelled almost two dozen Russia officials in London, accused of spying, in the wake of the novichok nerve agent poisoning of Sergei Skripal, the former Russian double agent, and his daughter Yulia in 2018.
This triggered a tit-for tat rejection of some British officials at the embassy in Moscow.
In the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there have been further expulsions by the UK and – in much greater numbers – other European allies.
In May of this year, Britain announced it was expelling Russia’s defence attache, accusing him of being an “undeclared military intelligence officer” amid concerns about what the UK described as a campaign of “malign activity” by Moscow across the UK and Europe.
The Kremlin retaliated by expelling the British defence attache from Moscow.
The most recent expulsions of UK diplomats are thought to be linked to these escalating tensions as opposed to having anything to do with the UK support for Ukraine.
However, the timing of the publication of the decision by Russian state media on Friday is interesting.
It comes as the UK and the US are weighing up whether to allow Ukraine to use their long-range missiles to strike targets inside Russia – a move that President Putin has said would be regarded as Western allies directly joining the war against Russia.
Sir Keir Starmer and Joe Biden are due to meeting Washington on Friday with a decision of green-lighting the use of UK-French Storm Shadow cruise missiles thought to be imminent.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has for months been asking permission to fire long-range Storm Shadow missiles, as well as US-made ATACMS missiles, into Russia to limit its ability to launch attacks.
President Biden has previously limited the distance US-provided missiles can be fired across the border amid concerns over an escalation.
Five weeks ago, Ukraine also launched an incursion into Russia’s western Kursk region in a bid to gain an advantage in the war and divert Russian troops from Ukraine’s Donetsk region.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
President Zelenskyy said on Thursday Russia had started a “counteroffensive action” in Kursk, but that Ukrainian forces had anticipated it and were ready to fight.
Russia’s defence ministry said 10 settlements had been recaptured.
Migrants convicted of sex offences in the UK or overseas will be unable to claim asylum under government plans to change the law to improve border security.
The Home Office announcement means foreign nationals who are added to the sex offenders register will forfeit their rights to protection under the Refugee Convention.
As part of the 1951 UN treaty, countries are allowed to refuse asylum to terrorists, war criminals and individuals convicted of a “particularly serious crime” – which is currently defined in UK law as an offence carrying a sentence of 12 months or more.
The government now plans to extend that definition to include all individuals added to the Sex Offenders’ Register, regardless of the length of sentence, in an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is currently going through parliament. It’s understood they also hope to include those convicted of equivalent crimes overseas.
Those affected will still be able to appeal their removal from the UK in the courts under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Image: More than 10,000 people have now been detected crossing the Channel. Pic: PA
It is unclear how many asylum seekers will be affected, as the government has been unable to provide any projections or past data on the number of asylum seekers added to the Sex Offenders’ Register.
More from Politics
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: “Sex offenders who pose a risk to the community should not be allowed to benefit from refugee protections in the UK.
“We are strengthening the law to ensure these appalling crimes are taken seriously.”
Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls Minister Jess Philips said: “We are determined to achieve our mission of halving violence against women and girls in a decade.
“That’s exactly why we are taking action to ensure there are robust safeguards across the system, including by clamping down on foreign criminals who commit heinous crimes like sex offences.”
The Home Office would like voters to see this as a substantial change. But that’s hard to demonstrate without providing any indication of the scale of the problem it seeks to solve.
Clearly, the government does not want to fan the flames of resentment towards asylum seekers by implying large numbers have been committing sex crimes.
But amid rising voter frustration about the government’s grip on the issue, and under pressure from Reform – this measure is about signalling it is prepared to take tough action.
Conservatives: ‘Too little, too late’
The Conservatives claim Labour are engaged in “pre-election posturing”.
Chris Philp MP, the shadow home secretary, said: “This is too little, too late from a Labour government that has scrapped our deterrent and overseen the worst year ever for small boat crossings – with a record 10,000 people crossing this year already.
“Foreign criminals pose a danger to British citizens and must be removed, but so often this is frustrated by spurious legal claims based on human rights claims, not asylum claims.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:18
Has Labour tackled migration?
The Home Office has also announced plans to introduce a 24-week target for appeal hearings (known as “first-tier tribunals”) to be held for rejected asylum seekers living in taxpayer-supported accommodation, or for foreign national offenders.
The current average wait is 50 weeks. The idea is to cut the asylum backlog and save taxpayers money – Labour have committed to end the use of asylum hotels by the end of this parliament.
It’s unclear how exactly this will be achieved, although a number of additional court days have already been announced.
The government also plans to crack down on fake immigration lawyers who advise migrants on how to lodge fraudulent asylum claims, with the Immigration Advice Authority given new powers to issue fines of up to £15,000.
A 14-year-old girl who attempted to murder two teachers and a pupil at a school in Wales has been sentenced to 15 years in detention.
The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was previouslyfound guilty of attempting to murder teachers Fiona Elias and Liz Hopkin and a pupil at Ysgol Dyffryn Aman in Ammanford.
Emergency services were called to the school on 24 April last year, in what the trial heard was a “serious episode of violence” during the mid-morning break after the girl took her father’s fishing “multi-tool” to school.
She had admitted to three counts of wounding with intent and possession of a bladed article on a school premises, but a jury found her guilty of attempted murder in February after a week-long trial.
Following her arrest, the teenager told officers she was “pretty sure” the incident would be on the news, and added “that’s one way to be a celebrity”.
Both Mrs Elias and Mrs Hopkin “received significant and serious injuries”, Swansea Crown Court heard.
Mrs Hopkin was airlifted to the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff after she sustained “four stab wounds”, while Mrs Elias and the pupil also attended hospital for treatment.
Image: Ammanford in Carmarthenshire
‘Changed my life forever’
Reading her victim personal statement from the witness box on Monday, Fiona Elias said the incident had shown her that life was “fragile” and had been “a steep learning curve”.
“Walking out on duty that day would change my life forever,” she said – a moment which “replays itself over and over no matter how much time passes”.
“It’s not easy, and I know I’ll continue to face challenges, but every day I’m taking step towards healing,” Mrs Elias said.
Addressing the defendant, Mrs Elias said “your motive was clear, you intended to murder me” but that she was stopped “thanks to Liz’s selfless actions”.
She said she was not “ruling out the possibility of a meeting with [the pupil] in the future,” but that she first needed to know she would “engage with the interventions that will be put in place”.
Outlining her plans to campaign for safer working conditions at schools, Mrs Elias said: “I never expected to give my blood, but I will always give my heart to Ysgol Dyffryn Aman and to the world of education.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:33
The teenager, who can’t be named, is due to be sentenced in April.
‘Right place at the right time’
Liz Hopkin said it had been “the worst experience of [her] life” but that she was “glad” she was “in the right place at the right time” to protect Mrs Elias.
“I’m still here, I’m still alive, though at the time I was sure that I was going to die,” she told the court.
“Physically, my wounds have healed but the scars remain.”
Mrs Hopkin added that the thought of returning to a career in teaching now filled her with “anxiety and dread”.
“You were prepared to kill someone you did not know,” she said, addressing the defendant, who sat in the court for proceedings, until she moved to the dock for sentence.
“The decision to end my life was never yours to make.”
But Mrs Hopkin said she worried about the defendant’s future, adding: “I don’t want you to be punished forever but I do want you to take every opportunity to make your life better.”
Concluding her victim personal statement, Mrs Hopkin said: “It has changed me in ways I never wanted and that is something I will have to live with for the rest of my life.”
Image: Pic: PA
‘Very complex young girl’
Prosecuting, William Hughes KC said aggravating factors in the case included use of a knife, the fact two of the victims were “carrying out a public service” and that the offending took place in public.
In mitigation, Caroline Rees KC said the defendant was “a very complex young girl”.
She said she had shown remorse, had a “difficult background” and also the fact there were two trials.
Handing down his sentence, Judge Paul Thomas said the defendant would serve half of the 15-year sentence before she can be considered for release.
Addressing the defendant, he said: “What you did in school almost a year ago the day has caused a large number of people a great deal of harm and upset. It has hugely affected many lives, including, of course, your own.”
“The simple fact is you tried to kill three people, two teachers and another pupil,” he added.
“I think that it is very important here that what you did you did in full of so many other pupils…In my view you wanted as many of your fellow pupils as possible to see what you intended to do.”
The Judge added that “for one reason or other, [the defendant wasn’t] really listening” to the victim impact statements of Mrs Elias and Mrs Hopkin.
He said he did not think the teenager was “genuinely sorry” for what she did, adding: “You showed no emption or even interest in how they felt that day or ever since.”