14 December 2018
Moscow: 18:03
London: 15:03

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

 
285 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     277 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

08.08.2018

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the 10th anniversary of the August 2008 events in the Caucasus

Ten years ago, on the night of August 7-8, 2008, the Government of Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia breached the agreement on a peaceful settlement of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict by launching a full-scale military operation against South Ossetia.

Georgia’s aggression against Tskhinval, which has been universally recognised as a party to the conflict, had not been provoked in any way. Under the 1992 agreement signed between Russia and Georgia in Sochi, security in South Ossetia was maintained by the Joint Peacekeeping Forces (JPKF), comprising three battalions from Russia, South Ossetia and Georgia. There was also a Joint Control Commission comprising Russia, Georgia, North Ossetia and South Ossetia. Despite Georgia’s repeated attempts to revise the Sochi agreement, at the time of the conflict the Russian peacekeepers were deployed in South Ossetia legally within the framework of an internationally recognised settlement mechanism. OSCE observers had also been deployed in South Ossetia since 1992.

As for Abkhazia, it was officially recognised a party to the conflict in the documents adopted by the UN Security Council, including Resolution 1808, one of the recent documents adopted on this issue. A UN Observer Mission was deployed there alongside the CIS Collective Peacekeeping Force.

Late at night on August 7, Georgian forces launched a large-scale artillery attack on Tskhinval, which lasted until the following morning. Georgian General Mamuka Kurashvili announced in a televised statement that “Georgia has launched an operation to restore constitutional order in South Ossetia.” Georgia’s Grad multiple launch rocket systems stationed around Tskhinval shelled the South Ossetian capital, making no distinction between military and residential targets. On August 8, the Georgian army, supported by tanks and armoured vehicles as well as the special operations forces of the Interior Ministry, entered Tskhinval.

At the same time, the Georgian army attacked the Russian peacekeepers’ settlement. Some time before that, the Georgian military observers covertly left the area of the peacekeepers’ joint headquarters and observation posts. On August 8-10, the peacekeeping battalion repelled at least five Georgian attacks. Ten Russian peacekeepers were killed and some 40 wounded. The buildings and equipment in the peacekeepers’ settlement were destroyed or seriously damaged.

The Georgian attacks devastated Tskhinval. The majority of residential blocks were razed to the ground or damaged. The city’s utility and other critical infrastructure as well as industrial facilities were damaged, along with several villages near Tskhinval.

In light of direct threat to the life of Russian citizens in South Ossetia, the Russian leadership decided to launch an operation to enforce peace on Georgia.

The fact that it was Georgia who launched the aggression was later officially confirmed, including in the report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, which was established by decision of the Council of the European Union and chaired by Heidi Tagliavini from Switzerland. The report was published in autumn 2009.

The participation of the Russian armed forces in repelling the attack on South Ossetia was legitimate and in keeping with the right of self-defence as stipulated in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The Russian Federation used its armed forces in response to a large-scale Georgian attack on the Russian peacekeeping units that were deployed in South Ossetia legally and with Georgia’s permission. As per Article 51 of the UN Charter, Russia notified the UN Security Council of the application of the right of self-defence.

The Russian military operation in South Ossetia was launched solely to stop the Georgian aggression and to prevent a recurrence of aggression. The planning and implementation of that operation was strictly commensurate to the threat from Georgia. Upon completing the operation, the units of the Russian Armed Forces taking part in it were pulled back from Georgia in October 2008 in accordance with the principles for a settlement of the conflict coordinated by President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev and President of France Nicolas Sarkozy (the Medvedev-Sarkozy six-point plan, which is often mistakenly referred to a ceasefire agreement) and the subsequent agreements of September 8, 2008.

On August 26, 2008, Russia recognised the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in keeping with the relevant provisions of the UN Charter, the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and other fundamental international documents. The attack on South Ossetia and preparations for a similar operation against Abkhazia, which were the final stage of Georgia’s years-long policy of coercion against these nations, left them with no other option than to protect their security and the right to existence by proclaiming their self-determination as independent states.

By recognising the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia also assumed responsibility not only for their security but also largely for their development as modern, democratic and socially and economically prosperous countries. The establishment of diplomatic relations with them on September 9, 2008 and the signing of the Treaties of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance on September 17, 2008 provided the basis for Russia’s active interaction with Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

On September 8, 2008, the presidents of Russia and France approved their plan of August 12, which set out six principles for the settlement of these conflicts. Based on this plan, a new international format on stability and security in the South Caucasus, the Geneva International Discussions (GID), was launched on October 15, 2008. This event formalised the new political and legal realities that developed in the region following the Georgian military operation, much as some forces would like to present this in a different light. It has been agreed that representatives of Abkhazia, Georgia, South Ossetia, the EU, the OSCE, the UN, Russia and the United States will be equally represented at the Geneva discussions as direct parties to the settlement that are interested in maintaining stability and security in the South Caucasus. The EU, the OSCE and the UN co-chair the Geneva discussions by agreement between the parties.

The main lesson of the 2008 tragedy is that it is senseless and counterproductive to try to use force to settle international disputes or conflicts, especially when the issue concerns the complex and delicate sphere of ethnic relations. The use of violence in such cases can only have the most painful and sometimes irremediable consequences. Over the ensuing period, Russia has been working in the South Caucasus to resume dialogue and comprehensive negotiations between Georgia on the one hand, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the other hand. The first step towards this goal could be the signing of non-use-of-force agreements. We hope that common sense will prevail after all.

http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/3315007

 

 




LATEST EVENTS

13.12.2018 - Statement of the Russian Federation on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, Marrakesh, December 11, 2018

The Russian Federation supports the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. This compromise document covers many dimensions of international migration, including humanitarian aspect, development issues, human rights and fight against crime.


12.12.2018 - Embassy comment on the state of the investigation into the death of Nikolay Glushkov

Nine months have passed since former Deputy General Director of Aeroflot Nikolay Glushkov, a national of the Russian Federation, mysteriously died in London.


11.12.2018 - Joint statement by Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia (plurinational state of), Burundi, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russian Federation, State of Palestine, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zimbabwe at the Fourth review conference of the chemical weapons convention, the Hague, November 30, 2018

We, the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC), committed to achieving the goal of freeing the world of chemical weapons, strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere and under any circumstances.


09.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the accusations of “Russian involvement” in the cases of Scott Young and Alexander Perepilichny

Question: The Sunday Times articles today speculate on the possibility that, despite earlier claims, Mr Scott Young and Mr Alexander Perepilichny were killed, while also hinting at the alleged “Russian link”. How could the Embassy comment on that? Answer: These and similar “sensations” follow the same traditional pattern. As always, no official information is provided, only leaks in the media from unknown sources. Upon this rickety foundation, fancy theories are built, with a remarkably rich collection of modal verbs used. And as always, publications appear on the eve of an important political event, such as Brexit deal vote. It is really hard to avoid the impression that we witness a pre-meditated political game to draw the public attention from the less glamorous sides of UK foreign and internal affairs.


09.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the UK position on chemical weapons attack in Aleppo, Syria

Question: How would you comment on the statement by the UK FCO spokesperson on chemical weapons use in Aleppo? Answer: The statement reflects the worst traditions of the modern UK diplomacy in both form and substance: no attempts are made to present any evidence supporting its allegations, instead phrases of little value, such as “likely”, “highly likely” or “highly unlikely”, are being used excessively.


07.12.2018 - Embassy Comment on the situation with Russian nationals Sergei and Yulia Skripal

More than nine months have passed since the incident with the Russian citizens Sergei and Yulia Skripal. The British authorities have been in breach of their obligations under five basic international conventions as they persistently refuse to work together with the Russian side, fail to use official channels for bilateral exchange of information and make every effort to cover up the circumstances of the incident. The Skripals have not been seen alive for a long time. Their whereabouts and health status are unknown.


06.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning recent publications in the British media concerning alleged increase of Russian intelligence activity

Question: How would you comment on British media reports claiming that British security services are currently witnessing intensive activity of Russian intelligence officers allegedly working under diplomatic cover? Answer: Unfortunately, the spy hysteria in the British society is aggravating. The content of such publications, which regularly appear in the British media with the connivance of the authorities, shows that the current Conservative government is increasing its efforts to create a “toxic” image of the Russian Embassy in order to complicate our interaction with the British public as much as possible. Embassy staff travelling across the country is an absolutely normal, lawful and indispensable part of their work and daily life. Yet it is displayed as some kind of intelligence missions. This amounts to an attempt to limit the Embassy’s routine operations to a minimum.


05.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the UK Government’s assessment of Ukraine’s actions

Question: The UK Government openly distorts the circumstances of the incident in the Kerch Strait on 25 November. What do you think is the reason for that? Answer: Unfortunately, the Ukrainian provocation in the Black Sea, as well as the general situation in the region, continues to be used by a number of Western countries, including the UK, to stir anti-Russian rhetoric. The details of the incident, most notably the blatant and deliberate violation of the territorial waters of the Russian Federation by the Ukrainian ships, are ignored by the UK Government. A number of British media outlets have also given a biased assessment of Russian actions in the Kerch Strait.


05.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning recent appeals of the British officials to impose new sanctions against Russia

Question: Recently British government officials have been actively urging to step up pressure on Russia by imposing new sanctions. How would you comment on this matter? Answer: We have taken note of such calls. Those statements have clearly shown the anti-Russian essence of the current Conservative government’s policies. The British officials are doing their utmost to avoid conducting a normal intergovernmental dialogue with Russia, while using only the language of ultimatums and sanctions, and are actively urging their partners, first and foremost in Europe, to act in a similar manner.


04.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning accusations of “spying” made against Channel One Russia journalists

Question: How would you comment on the publications in British media claiming that “Channel One Russia” journalists were involved in some sort of “spying activity”? Answer: We have taken note of the numerous publications with accusations against “Channel One Russia” journalists of “spying”, as well as of the instruction by the British Ministry of Defence that soldiers should not talk to Russian journalists and report them to the police if they ever see them near military installations. Such ungrounded accusations raise much concern. “Channel One Russia” works in the UK officially and openly, with all the necessary paperwork, in accordance with British law. In fact, this cannot always be said about certain UK journalists working in Russia.



all messages