PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey as guarantors of the Astana format:
1. Reaffirmed their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter;
2. Reaffirmed in this regard the respect for universally recognized international legal decisions, including those provisions of the relevant UN resolutions rejecting the occupation of Syrian Golan, first and foremost UN Security Council resolution 497;
Almost a year and a half has passed since the mysterious incident in Salisbury. Unfortunately, despite our numerous appeals to the British side for transparency of the investigation, access to affected Russian nationals Sergei and Yulia Skripal, substantive cooperation to clarify the circumstances surrounding the incident, no clear answer has been received yet. More than 80 Notes Verbales sent to the Foreign Office and the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation for legal assistance have been ignored so far.
Once again, we call upon the British authorities to move back to the field of the international law in order to answer the following fundamental questions: what is the health condition of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, who was behind their poisoning and disappearance, how were they treated, and finally, are the British investigators interested in search for the truth and what are the official results of the investigation?
Question: Does the Embassy have any new information regarding the circumstances of the mysterious murder of the Russian national Nikolay Glushkov in London that happened on 12 March 2018?
Answer: The Embassy regrets to state that, as almost a year and a half has passed since this crime, the British authorities continue to disregard our numerous diplomatic enquiries concerning course and results of the investigation into the murder of former Deputy Director General of “Aeroflot” Mr Nikolay Glushkov in the UK. We consider an approach, chosen by the British side, not only as contempt for their international obligations but also as a violation of diplomatic decency rules.
Question: The US has formally withdrawn from a key nuclear treaty. How does Russia assess the situation around the INF?
Press Secretary: The US decided to pull out of the INF Treaty under a false pretext of Russia’s non-compliance with the agreement. Our country has done everything possible to save the Treaty, including by making unprecedented proposals of transparency. However, Washington continued its reckless and dangerous way to demolish the pact.
It is worth stressing that Moscow, nevertheless, has a credible list of US violation of the Treaty, which has been repeatedly presented to our partners. It consists of the following:
On August 2, the United States completed the withdrawal from the INF Treaty. Accordingly, this instrument ceased to have effect.
Washington has committed a grave mistake. By launching a propaganda campaign based on deliberately misleading information on what was presented as violations of the INF Treaty by Russia, the United States intentionally plunged the Treaty into a crisis that was almost impossible to overcome. The cause is however clear: the United States wanted to free itself from the existing restrictions.
Full transcript:
Q.: How would you comment on the decision to establish the "Board of Inquiry"?
A.: We were very amazed and we regret this step, frankly speaking. I know that there will be an official communication from Moscow in this regard, so I will not go into much detail, but we think that it was a mistake. And we regret that there was a pressure on the Secretary-General from some countries that really do not want to bring peace to Syria. Ambassador Nebenzia expressed our position in detail during the last meeting of the Security Council. We thought that it was quite reasonable and clear, but somehow there was a pressure. We still need to know the details. I myself saw this statement in the morning and it came a little bit unexpected, I would not conceal this.
We took note of UK media reports today that referred to statements by the British military on the establishment of specialised divisions for offensive cyber warfare in the information space. In particular, I mean The Daily Telegraph, which justifies such measures by the need to rebuff, among other things, imaginary threats from Russia. The Times, for example, wrote expressly that such divisions are to “orchestrate cyberattacks and spread misinformation.”
Question: The British press pays too much attention to the measures by Russian law enforcement agencies in preventing unlawful assemblies. How would the Metropolitan Police behave if it was due to protect public order in the streets of Moscow?
Answer: We have no doubts in the professionalism of the Metropolitan Police officers that faithfully carry out their duty and prevent public disorder in the UK. They also do their hard work in full compliance with the national legislation.
Question: Recently there have been quite a few publications in the UK media telling the readers of the massed airstrikes in Syria, in Idlib and elsewhere, with multiple casualties among civilians. How would you comment on that?
Answer: We took note of yet another set of allegations in the British media. There is nothing new about it. It is hard to avoid the impression that some British journalists are remarkably gullible when it comes to the sources of their information, quoting anonymous witnesses from the notorious White Helmets group, proven liars and provocateurs, or from the so-called “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights”, which is only marginally more credible. Attempts to get a balanced picture of what happens in Syria, to listen to the independent, unbiased sources are lacking utterly.
What comes to my mind now is briefings by Mark Lowcock on, say, Yemen or Libya, where both the tone and presentation are completely different from those at briefings on Syria. Don’t you have the same feeling? It is not the first time such a thing comes to my mind.
As usual, today we heard another portion of invectives against Syria and Russia. Colleagues spouted figures, quotes and emotional testimonies. By the way, we know the price of some of those emotional testimonies. We remember leading Western Media, e.g. “New York Times”, inflate the tragedy of a Syrian boy Omran Daqneesh from Aleppo. However, after Eastern Aleppo had been liberated, this turned out to have been a staged episode. Later on, the boy’s parents confirmed this. Today my British colleague accused Russia of mocking at the Security Council. I do not intend to turn this meeting into a contest (by the way, I do not know what exactly she held for a mockery), but we remember a mockery at the Security Council that comes from those countries who are used to blaming Russia for everything.
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
| 
