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 media reports concerning activities in the framework of the British project “Integrity Initiative”?
Answer: We are aware of publications regarding the activities of this structure. They show that it has been partially funded by the British government, and that a number of programmes in sovereign European states aimed at demonisation of Russia’s image have been arranged in its framework. The Embassy has sent an official request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office asking to confirm or deny the authenticity of the published documents, and to provide information on current and planned projects on Russia funded by the FCO.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey as guarantors of the Astana format:
Question: How would you comment on the statements by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Minister for Europe Sir Alan Duncan on the need to allow free passage through the Kerch Strait?
Answer: There is no logic in these statements by the UK Government. They are aimed purely at stoking anti-Russian sentiments. Until the deliberate provocation by Kiev on Sunday, there had been no problems with the passage of civilian or military ships, including Ukrainian ones, through the Kerch Strait. The so-called “obstacles” allegedly put by Russia were nothing but routine security checks and did not differ significantly from the inspection procedures used in the Strait by the Ukrainian authorities until 2014. The actions of the Russian border guards are not discriminatory: this year almost half of the checked vessels were heading to Russian ports on the Sea of Azov.
We have taken note of the statement by the Chief of the General Staff, General Mark Carleton-Smith, to the effect that “Russia today indisputably represents a far greater threat to our national security than Islamic extremist threats such as al-Qaeda and Isil”. The threat posed by Isil to the UK has indeed decreased, and that to a large extent due to Russia’s efforts in Syria, which have been constantly hampered by London. In this sense, Russia has strengthened Britain’s security over the last several years.
Question: Authors of the “Panorama” TV documentary concerning the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, shown on 22 November on BBC One, claimed that they had offered the Russian government to present its point of view on this incident, but that this offer was declined. What’s the reason behind such position of Russia? Answer: We have no information whether the film’s authors had sent any requests to any Russian governmental body. At least, the Embassy has not been contacted.
We have studied carefully the documentary on the Salisbury incident presented on BBC One in Panorama on 22 November. We have to note that it does not contain any new information on what happened, and does not give answers to the numerous questions the Russian side has raised before the British authorities over almost nine months since the incident.
On 22 November the Embassy sent another Note Verbale to the FCO concerning the Salisbury incident. In this Note we have pointed at the clear violation of international law by the British side and the defiance of the legitimate right of the Russian Federation to get full information about Russian citizens, who have been kept in isolation and under full control of the British authorities.
Question: How would you comment on today's statements by Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson on plans to increase British military presence in Ukraine?
Answer: This decision goes against the imperative for resolving the Ukrainian conflict through political and diplomatic means on the basis of the Minsk Agreements, which the UK claims to be committed to. Ukraine continues to ignore its obligations under the Package of Measures for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements by relying on a military solution to the conflict and refusing to negotiate directly with Donetsk and Lugansk representatives. The remarks by Mr Williamson show that instead of putting all possible pressure on Kiev the British government supports and even encourages the Ukrainian authorities to continue the military operation against their own people.
Question: How would you comment on the recent statement by the Foreign Office spokesperson accusing Russia of “disrupting Ukrainian and international shipping calling at Ukrainian ports” as well as “growing military presence” in the Sea of Azov?
Answer: These claims are a result of perverse attempts to dig out any fresh pretexts for accusations against Russia with regard to the conflict in Ukraine. In this light, lawful actions of Russian border guards are somehow presented as running against international norms. Russia is designated a culprit by default.
Question: How would you comment on the Report by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy “Cyber Security of the UK’s Critical National Infrastructure” of 19 November, in which Russia was mentioned?
Answer: Recently, we have seen a whole series of insinuations to the effect that the United Kingdom has been facing cyberthreats from a number of states, including Russia. Such statements are reckless, provocative and unfounded. Unfortunately, this report is no exception, although the document, to be fair, states that “there is much, much more to the cyber security threat to the UK than just Russia”.
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
| 
