EMBASSY INFORMS
Q.: 12 October marks seven months since the death of Nikolay Glushkov. Does the Embassy have any new information on this case?
A.: Unfortunately, once again we have to state that the British side continues to evade any sort of cooperation with Russia with regard to the investigation of the death of former Deputy Director General of “Aeroflot” Mr Glushkov that occurred on British soil on 12 March.
The British authorities continue to ignore numerous Russian requests, including the official request of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation for legal assistance in the criminal case opened in Russia into the Nikolay Glushkov’s death. There are no answers to the Embassy’s proposals to arrange a meeting or consultations between the Investigative Committee, Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation experts and the Metropolitan Police representatives. On 12 October 2018 the Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom Alexander Yakovenko held a press conference on the current Russia-UK relations. Ladies and gentlemen,
In recent weeks we have received a number of media requests concerning the current state of bilateral affairs between Russia and the United Kingdom. I am also often asked how numerous anti-Russian statements by the British officials influence our approach towards the UK. Considering this, I have decided to invite you today to make respective short comments on these issues and answer your additional questions.
Currently the relations between Russia and the UK are at a very low level. The reason for that lies in an aggressive anti-Ru ssian campaign launched by the current Tory government and supported by the British media. On 4 October, 2018 Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the United Kingdom Dr Alexander Yakovenko delivered a speech at Harrow School, one of the oldest and most prominent British private schools for boys. Question: How would you comment on Bellingcat’s claims that it has “tracked down Alexander Petrov’s real identity”? Answer: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has recently advised us to consider such publications and statements as a display of freedom of public debate into which the UK Government does not interfere. There have already been reports that the Home Office and Metropolitan Police would not comment on these “speculations”. This is exactly the case when we should follow the example of our British colleagues. Question: The Embassy declared its intent to request clarifications from the British side following the recent accusations of cyberattacks, and the media reports on preparations for retaliatory cyberstrikes against targets in Russia. Has there been any response? Answer: Today we have received a reply from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which implies that, as before, the British side is not going to provide us with any details that may serve as the basis of the accusations. In this case, we are not in a position to make comments on the essence of those accusations. On 4 October, UK Permanent Representative to OPCW Peter Wilson speaking on behalf of Minister for Europe Sir Alan Duncan claimed that the “GRU” allegedly “attempted to compromise UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office computer systems via a spear phishing attack” and “targeted computers of the UK Defence and Science Technology Laboratory”. The same day the UK National Cyber Security Centre stated that “multiple email accounts belonging to a small UK-based TV station were accessed and content stolen” and “the GRU was almost certainly responsible”.Today, the Embassy has forwarded a Note Verbale to the FCO demanding that the UK Government produces and immediately shares with the Russian side hard evidence and proofs supporting those claims, and informs about sources used to draw such conclusions. We have reminded, in particular, that Russia had repeatedly proposed expert consultations on cybersecurity in order to address UK’s concerns, if any. Q.: How would you comment on the Mark Urban’s book on Sergei Skripal published on 4 October?
A.: We intend yet to study this book. At the same time, it is a well known fact that Mark Urban has close links with British secret services. This gives us grounds for considering this book as an attempt to compensate for Sergei Skripal’s public non-appearance as the key witness to the Salisbury incident. Instead of facts, the public is again offered speculation and guesses. Question: How would you comment on today’s statement by the Foreign Office accusing Russia of worldwide cyber-attacks on massive scale?
Answer: This statement is reckless. It has become a tradition for such claims to lack any evidence. It is yet another element of the anti-Russian campaign by the UK Government. Question: How would you comment on the latest statements by US officials on Russia’s alleged non-compliance with INF Treaty? Answer: Russia has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty). The US allegations of Russian non-compliance relate to one particular missile type. While we have assured Washington on multiple occasions that the mentioned missile does not violate INF, the US has never explained the exact reasons of their preoccupation. These allegations divert attention from the American actions that are breaching a number of INF provisions. Question: How would you comment on the new anti-Russian statements made by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt on Sunday at the annual Conservative Party conference in Birmingham? Answer: We do not in the least wish to comment on another portion of the aggressive anti-Russian accusations made by Jeremy Hunt, which are a far cry from reality. Q: How do you assess the statement made by Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson on UK intentions to develop a new Defence Arctic Strategy?
A: We call on British authorities, who have recently been actively promoting the concept of Global Britain, to pursue their ambitions in other fields. The speeches delivered during the general discussion at this session of the UN General Assembly confirm the fact that international relations are going through a very complex and contradictory historical stage.
Today, we are witnesses to a collision of two opposing trends. On the one hand, the polycentric principles of the world order are growing stronger and new economic growth centres are taking shape. We can see nations striving to preserve their sovereignty and to choose the development models that are consistent with their ethnic, cultural and religious identity. On the other hand, we see the desire of a number of Western states to retain their self-proclaimed status as “world leaders” and to slow down the irreversible move toward multipolarity that is objectively taking place. To this end, anything goes, up to and including political blackmail, economic pressure and brute force. Question: How would you comment on the new claims by the British media that the police and secret services have identified a third Russian national allegedly involved into the Salisbury incident? Answer: Unfortunately, we witness yet another turn of a powerful media campaign launched by the Tory government in March aimed at discrediting and isolating Russia on the international arena. The whole situation around the Skripals’ case reminds of an endless soap opera as the media are repeatedly referring to anonymous sources in the British security and secret services and publishing multiple unverifiable versions and leaks on a daily basis. Statement by the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Ambassador A.Shulgin at the Briefing for the OPCW members in connection with the UK’s allegations against Russia of its involvement in the CW’s incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury
Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen, Today we invited you here to present the Russian position in relation to the ongoing insinuations by the UK about the chemical weapons’ incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury... I will begin with a refutation of all these absurd arguments. There has been a lot of information in the open sources indicating that many western countries – above all the United States and the United Kingdom – have been working with nerve agents of a new generation. And it was there – in the mentioned countries - where the general term “Novichok” for all these chemicals was put into circulation. The Russian side has submitted a voluminous 300-page compilation of materials to the OPCW Scientific Advisory Board, which we also requested to circulate as our national document among all the States Parties to the Convention. There are several of well-known facts: back in 1998, the Americans included a mass spectrum of a substance, which they call "Novichok" in the national database – CAS. At the 57th Meeting of the OPCW Executive Council we also showed documents confirming that the US patented the CW’s munitions, which were supposed to be filled with a nerve agent of the "Novichok" class.
all messages 
| 
