Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I answered this question earlier. It is useful to have a channel of communication that allows us to communicate in no uncertain terms what we think of Russia's position on Ukraine and its aggression and invasion of a sovereign neighbour. We called the Russian ambassador into the Department on 3 October to make it very clear that we will never support the referendum results across four regions of Ukraine. They were effectively sham referendums held at gunpoint by Russia. We also have Irish citizens in Russia and across neighbouring countries who are supported from our embassy in Moscow.

On a decision to expel the Russian ambassador, while I completely understand the sentiment, frustration and anger that Irish people have in the context of what Russia is currently doing, I believe having a channel of communication open is what diplomacy is all about, even with countries with which we may have a fundamental disagreement. It is noteworthy that no other country in the EU is expelling Russian ambassadors - even countries that border Russia and are more deeply impacted by this war than we are. International diplomacy matters even when a war is going on and when we have a fundamental disagreement with a country as we have with Russia now. Keeping channels of communication open makes sense. If we have a consular incident in Russia, Members will look to me to solve it and I will need channels of communication. I will need an embassy in Moscow that can respond to that. I believe it is worth keeping that diplomatic infrastructure in place, despite the very fundamental problem we have with Russia's aggression and illegal activity in Ukraine at present.

See this speech in context