4 April 2020
Moscow: 19:18
London: 17:18

Consular queries:  
+44 (0) 203 668 7474  
info@rusemb.org.uk  

 
762 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     754 days have passed since the death of Nikolay Glushkov on British soil - no credible information or response from the British authorities

PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS

Pages: ««« :: 313233343536373839404142434445 :: »»»  


05.07.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a question on the "Russian disinformation campaign" in the context of the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents

Q: Home secretary Sajid Javid has stated in Parliament that the Russian media are already producing multiple explanations of the incident in Amesbury and that a new disinformation campaign should be expected from the Kremlin. How could you comment on this? A: It is not the first time that British officials are speculating on “disinformation” and “numerous versions” produced by the Russian “pro-government media” regarding the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury and now of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley in Amesbury. The Foreign Office has even provided us with the list of 28 “official Russian versions” of the Salisbury incident, among which, for example, they cited the following: “the UK poisoned Ivan the Terrible” and “the operation in Eastern Ghouta is aimed at freeing civilians from terrorists”.


05.07.2018 - Embassy press officer on UK reaction to the Amesbury incident

Q: Can you comment on statements by Home Secretary Sajid Javid and Security Minister Ben Wallace that Russia refuses to cooperate over the Salisbury poisoning and that after the Amesbury incident the Russian state must “come and tell us what happened in Salisbury to keep people safe”? A: All allegations of Russia’s involvement in the incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury are merely speculative and are not based on objective data of the investigation. As for the cooperation and information sharing, Russia has from the very outset proposed a joint investigation of the attempted murder of two Russian nationals. The proposal remains on the table. Unfortunately, the British investigation remains totally non-transparent. Our numerous questions on this matter remain unanswered. The UK authorities avoid any contact with the Russian side on this, or any other issues of concern. Moreover, London continues to blatantly violate its international obligations by refusing consular access to the Russian citizens, who remain isolated and are highly likely under duress by secrets service.


04.07.2018 - Answer to media question regarding the invitation of British dignitaries to the FIFA World Cup

Q: According to The Guardian, “Russia has sent out a fresh invitation to Theresa May” to visit the World Cup despite the UK “ministerial boycott”. Can you confirm this? A: No personal invitations for British political figures have been sent out and, consequently, none has been revoked. As we know, the decision not to attend the tournament on official level came from London. Moreover, there were calls in Britain to boycott the World Cup, and the media painted a bleak picture on Russia in the run-up to the event. FIFA World Cup a festival of sports for the whole world. Despite what The Guardian claims, we are not “trying to tempt” anyone in particular, but we’ll be glad to let everybody support their team. This also refers to Britain’s representatives – if UK dignitaries decide to come, they’ll encounter the same hospitality as the England players and supporters.


04.07.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning Russia’s requests for legal assistance in the two criminal cases related to the murder of Nikolay Glushkov and the attempted murder of Yulia Skripal

Q: The Embassy informed about two weeks ago that the British authorities had not provided any answers to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation’s requests for legal assistance in the two criminal cases related to the murder of the Russian citizen Nikolay Glushkov and the attempted murder of the Russian citizen Yulia Skripal. Do you have any update? A: Unfortunately, we have not yet received any reply from the British side on this matter. The Embassy has recently forwarded another Note Verbale to the FCO to remind that in accordance with the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation has already sent three requests for legal assistance in the two criminal cases, namely those related to the murder of Nikolay Glushkov and the attempted murder of Yulia Skripal. As suggested by the FCO, we have contacted the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office for any updates on our requests, with no results so far.


04.07.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply a media question concerning The Sun article on the poisoning of the Skripals

Question: The Sun has informed that “Scotland Yard believes that two-man hit team led Salisbury nerve agent attack on behalf of the Kremlin”. How could you comment on that? Answer: Russia as much as the UK is interested in identifying perpetrators of this crime against Russian nationals. From this point of view, one could only welcome the identification of suspects. However, we cannot seriously comment on a report which is based, true to tradition, on obscure sources and contains numerous caveats. Notwithstanding the Embassy’s request by Note Verbale to the FCO to deny or to confirm this information, there have been no official statements on this matter so far. We have to note yet again that all the information with regard to the Salisbury incident is being made known through unverifiable media leaks.


29.06.2018 - Foreign Minister S.Lavrov’s interview with Chanel 4, Moscow, June 29, 2018 (full text)

Question: Foreign Minister, the summit is happening in Helsinki. Russian President V.Putin and US President D.Trump together. Is this the post-West world order that you have talked of in the past? Has it now arrived? S.Lavrov: Well, I think that we are in the post-West world order, but this order is being shaped and it will take a long time. It is a historical epoch, if you want. Certainly, after five or so centuries of domination of the collective West, as it were, it is not very easy to adjust to new realities that there are other powerhouses economically, financially and politically, China, India, Brazil. African countries are going to be very much on the rise, as soon as they resolve at least some of the conflicts, which are there on the continent. Well, Russia certainly would like to be an independent world player. Independent in the sense that we do not want to violate and international law and norms, but the decisions, which we would be taking on the basis of international law, would not be influenced by pressure, money, sanctions, threats or anything else.


29.06.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning statements of British Ambassador in Moscow Laurie Bristow for BBC Russian

Question: British Ambassador in Moscow Laurie Bristow has told BBC Russian that the British authorities stand by the decisions made in March against Russia in the aftermath of the Salisbury incident, despite the fact that, as he put it, the Met Police investigation is still in progress. What is Russia’s assessment of what happened in Salisbury? Is there any prospect of cooperation with the British side in the future? Answer: As we have said on numerous occasions, the Russian side has nothing to do with the Salisbury incident. As a responsible State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, Russia immediately offered the British authorities cooperation in accordance with Article IX of the Convention and, following a subsequent refusal, sent via official channels a proposal to hold a joint investigation of the incident. Moreover, the Russian General Prosecutor’s Office filed two requests with the Home Office for legal assistance on the criminal case on the attempted murder of Yulia Skripal. We are yet to receive an answer from the British authorities to either of these inquiries or proposals.


29.06.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerningthe British Medical Association’s statement on handling of the Salisbury incident

Question: How would you comment on the statement of the annual meeting of the British Medical Association in Brighton criticising the British government for the failure to establish adequate communication following the Salisbury incident? Answer: We have carefully studied the statement of the BMA 2018 Annual Representative Meeting, which deplored “the delay of 12 days before advice on managing potential contact with an unknown toxic substance was produced to GPs” following the Salisbury incident, the “failure to establish a dedicated poisons helpline” and a “register of all those who were possible contacts with the toxic substance”. Such delay has not prevented the British political leadership from declaring Russia responsible for the incident and arbitrarily expelling 23 diplomats from the Embassy. Instead of making real efforts to prevent further contamination, the British authorities, as it turns out, were busy distorting facts to support their politisiced accusations against Russia.


29.06.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a question on the outcome of the Ukraine Reform Conference, attended by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson

Q: What is your assessment of the results of the Ukraine Reform Conference, recently held in Copenhagen and attended by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson? A: The need for political reforms in Ukraine along with solutions to its security, economy and humanitarian problems is well-documented and has been particularly noted during the last “Normandy” meeting in Berlin. From this point of view, one could only welcome the Ukraine Reform Conference. However, we cannot agree with the way the Foreign Secretary has interpreted the results of the conference. Instead of undeservedly hailing Ukraine’s government, Mr Johnson should better provide a public and objective assessment of the internal political situation in Ukraine and Kiev's abuses against its own people. As we know, ethnic and cultural nationalism is being fostered in the country. The discriminating provisions of the Law on Education, which has made the position of not only the country’s Russian but also Hungarian, Romanian and Polish population vulnerable, have not been invalidated. The clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate continue to be harassed. Ethnic and religious crimes are reported almost every day. Lots of NGOs working in Ukraine have sounded alarm bells over the increased number of far-right nationalist attacks on ethnic minorities.


28.06.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a question on assigning attributive functions to the OPCW Technical Secretariat to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons

Q: Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has hailed the decision taken at the special session of the Conference of States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention to assign attributive functions to the OPCW Technical Secretariat to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons. How does Russia assess this decision? A: Indeed, London and its allies have, by using political manipulation and outright blackmail, managed to push through this decision, inappropriately assigning to the OPCW Secretariat the power to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. We believe this decision to be illegitimate. We are compelled to note that, in taking this decision, the Conference of States Parties went beyond its mandate. The OPCW was created to address clearly defined tasks of technical assistance to national programmes of destructing chemical weapons’ stockpiles. In order to expand its mandate, it is necessary to amend the Convention, especially since there is a corresponding mechanism in place, suitable for all States Parties.


Pages: ««« :: 313233343536373839404142434445 :: »»»