PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
Question: How would you comment on the publications in the British media that a Royal Navy minehunter vessel HMS Hurworth “intercepted” the Russian frigate “Admiral Makarov” when the latter was passing through the English Channel? Answer: Russian Navy ships act in accordance with the international law and strictly follow the current English Channel passing regulations. They do not pose any threat to the United Kingdom. The British side is well aware of this.
Question: How would you comment on the US, UK and France joint statement regarding the fifth anniversary of the chemical attack in Ghouta? Answer: Regretfully, the three states have issued another baseless statement. Five years have passed after the tragedy, and the international community still has not seen the proof of the Syrian government’s involvement in that incident. Moreover, it is put on a par with the events in Khan Sheikhun, Ltamena, Saraqeb and Douma, despite the fact that they took place after the successful completion of the international operation to remove precursors of chemical weapons from Syria in June 2014. “Assad regime” is blamed for the attack in a traditionally dogmatic manner, although even the US Department of State admitted that the terrorist groups operating in Syria had access to chemical weapons.
Question: How would you comment on the article by the Conservative Party MP Bob Seely in the “Daily Telegraph” claiming that Russia is “buying some European states and bullying others”, making it “difficult for the EU to unite against Russia”? Answer: Bob Seely’s article amounts to a manifesto of British russophobic circles. Such people tend to consider any social and economic phenomena in Europe through the lens of confrontation with the “aggressive Russia”.
Question: The British officials frequently use in their public statements the term “rules-based international order” or “system”. What is your view on such a wording? Answer: We follow this kind of verbal gymnastics with interest. The terms themselves are meant to create an impression that the UK is a consistent supporter of international law, ostensibly distinguishing London from some other states, who are supposed or declared to be its violators. In fact, this is an attempt to disguise apparent fundamental difference between consensual, agreed by the whole international community, clearly fixed norms of international law and some obscure “rules”, which are so dear to the British officials.
Question: Foreign Office Minister of State Alan Duncan has urged Russia to immediately release up to 70 “Ukrainian political prisoners”, including Oleg Sentsov and Volodymyr Balukh. How would you comment on this? Answer: The Embassy has taken note of the statement, which fails to reflect the real state of affairs. It should be reminded once again that Oleg Sentsov has been sentenced to 20 years in prison on grave charges of creating a terrorist group and preparing two terrorist acts. Volodymyr Balukh has been convicted to three and a half years in prison for illegal possession of arms. These are all criminal offences punishable not only in Russia but under the law of a vast majority of countries, including the United Kingdom.
Queston: How would you comment on the anti-Russian remarks made by the UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt during his US visit? Answer: Those statements follow the general line of the current Conservative government towards Russia. It is highly symbolic that Foreign Secretary Hunt has chosen the US Institute of Peace as a venue for his attacks. There is not much about peace. The UK authorities may prefer to continue their policy of scaremongering, using the so-called “Russian threat” in order to distract the British public from those urgent domestic and international problems the UK currently faces. But this “enemy search” is a flawed and shortsighted policy.
Question: How would you comment on the UK approaches to the reconstruction of Syria and repatriation of the refugees? Answer: Unfortunately, the UK continues to follow the overall pattern of Western policy of obstruction that Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov was talking about yesterday at the press-conference following the meeting with his Lebanese colleague Gebran Bassil. He said that the “US was making a contribution to Syria’s restoration; however, it was limited to the areas occupied by the opposition groups that were not always constructive”. Unfortunately, these words are fully applicable to the UK participation in that process. We have to acknowledge that London still prefers to provide assistance only to the Syrian regions under control of the militant opposition and jihadists groups.
Question: Does the Embassy have any new information regarding circumstances of the death of the Russian citizen Nikolay Glushkov in London on 12 March? Answer: Unfortunately, we have to state once again that the British side continues to evade any sort of cooperation with Russia with regard to the investigation of Mr Glushkov’s death. The British authorities continue to ignore our requests. After the Foreign and Commonwealth Office recommended to address all correspondence on this case not to the police but to the FCO, the Embassy has sent a respective Note Verbale.
We have taken note of the speech by Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Mark Field in the Philippines during his tour of Southeast Asia. The Minister has irresponsibly stated, inter alia, that “in recent years many countries have fallen victim to Russian state aggression”. These accusations are absolutely misleading. As we have emphasized over and over again at various levels, Russia does not threaten anyone. The UK, on the other hand, in recent years together with the US have initiated aggression in Iraq, destroyed Libya and committed an act of aggression against Syria this April by launching a massive missile attack on its territory.
Question: How would you comment on the recent information regarding the OPCW experts’ visit to the UK upon the British authorities request for “technical assistance” in the framework of the investigation of the Amesbury incident? Answer: First of all, we would like to point out that the Embassy has learned about the OPCW experts’ visit to the UK from the media publications. Unfortunately, the British side continiously refuses to launch a transparent and independent international investigation.
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
| 
