PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
Question: How could you comment on the statements on Russia having produced “40 fictitious narratives” on the Salisbury attack?
Answer: These reports are themselves fictitious. As we have said before, Russia does not, and cannot, have an official version of the incident for the simple reason of having no access to any data on which that version might be based.
Russian discussions over this issue are going on in a UK-imposed information vacuum, filled with endless leaks in British media which turn out to be false time and again. One may recall how many times it was announced that suspects had been identified (each time with different names and in varying numbers), or how many ways of executing the attack have been discussed.
Q.: Has the Embassy received any materials from the UK supporting yesterday’s accusations against Russia related to the Skripal case?
A.: No, we have not received any additional documents, clarifications or requests. The British authorities continue to expect “answers” from Russia, but they forget to ask questions. As we have pointed out earlier, London’s accusations are coupled with a blunt refusal to cooperate. Instead, we are spoken to in the language of ultimatums. The latest example was yesterday’s meeting at the Foreign Office where Ivan Volodin, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., was denied an opportunity to reply to the British démarche, raise additional questions or explain Russia’s position.
British Prime Minister Theresa May’s remarks at the British Parliament on September 5 regarding the Skripal case and the poisoning of two British nationals in Amesbury were delivered in an absolutely unacceptable tone. They contain a number of presumptuous accusations against Russia and two allegedly Russian citizens. We strongly reject these insinuations.
The British officials are once again focusing their attention on Russia’s alleged involvement in the incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury, following a scenario that has become familiar to everyone. Without any documentary support or trustworthy testimonials, they have declared that there is sufficient evidence to bring charges against two Russian nationals and published photos of the two men whose actual nationality is still to be confirmed.
Statements made today by the UK authorities on “identifying” the perpetrators of the poisoning of Sergey and Yulia Skripal prompt the Embassy to state the following. Since the very beginning, the Russian side has offered the UK to cooperate in the investigation on the 4 March Salisbury incident. We suggested to launch a joint investigation, we submitted a request for legal assistance in the framework of the criminal case opened in Russia, and we expressed our willingness to cooperate under established OPCW procedures. These offers remain on the table.
Today marks exactly six months since the Russian citizens Sergei and Yulia Skripal were taken to Salisbury District Hospital under obscure circumstances. Ever since, they have been kept in isolation and under full control of British authorities. They remain out of the public eye at an unknown location, unable to communicate freely with their relatives, friends, journalists or Russian officials, deprived of the freedom of movement. The British authorities have been continuously refusing the Embassy to establish direct contact with the Skripals in order to verify their actual health situation, the conditions in which they are held and, most importantly, to ascertain to which extent their isolation is voluntary.
Question: How will you comment on the statements made by British representatives, including Ambassador Karen Pierce, UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations, threatening to “respond appropriately if the Assad regime repeats its illegal use of chemical weapons”? Answer: We consider these statements and the plans to carry out a military strike against Syria as extremely dangerous. Fresh air strikes would become another blatant violation of international law. They would also seriously complicate the situation in Syria. We have already seen this in April.
Question: How would you comment on the information published by the British media stating that experts specializing in face recognition have allegedly joined the team investigating the Salisbury incident? Answer: The latest leak, claiming that some “face recognisers”, who allegedly participated in the investigation of the 2011 London riots, have been asked to help to identify the “Russian agents”, is yet another indication of the lack of serious evidence on this case. If one is to believe that the experts were called to check Salisbury CCTV recordings against photos of “known Russian agents”, this is another clear example of the efforts to make the investigation fit original political accusations against Russia voiced just days after the incident.
Question: How would you comment on the statement by the British Ministry of Defence that on 23 August Royal Air Force fighter jets stationed in Romania “interrupted” a "provocative" Russian aircraft over the Black Sea? Answer: Russian armed forces strictly comply with international law and pose no threat to Britain. One might understand why Royal Navy escorts Russian military ships in the English Channel, in the vicinity of the British coastline, even if this there is no need for the UK to publicise it. But what kind of threat to Britain or its allies does a Russian patrol aircraft hypothetically pose while conducting flights off Russia's own shore, some 1500 miles away from the UK?
Question: How would you comment on the statement by Wiltshire Police that Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury, searched in the framework of the investigation of poisoning of Dawn Sturgess and Charles Rowley, is to be reopened for the public? Answer: First of all, we are happy for the people of Salisbury. Reopening of the park, which has also been cleaned from litter, gives them an opportunity to return to normal everyday life. However, we would like to stress that the British side still has not provided us with answers regarding the investigation which, as before, is being conducted in a non-transparent way.
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
| 
