20 July 2019
Moscow: 17:21
London: 15:21

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

 
503 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     495 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

06.09.2018

Russian Foreign Ministry Statement

British Prime Minister Theresa May’s remarks at the British Parliament on September 5 regarding the Skripal case and the poisoning of two British nationals in Amesbury were delivered in an absolutely unacceptable tone. They contain a number of presumptuous accusations against Russia and two allegedly Russian citizens. We strongly reject these insinuations.

In particular, we took note of her saying that “only Russia had the technical means, operational experience and motive to carry out the attack.” This statement was made immediately after the release in The Hague on the previous day of a report by the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on the results of the work of this organisation’s experts at London’s request in connection with the Amesbury incident.

The report, in particular, says that the results of the analysis of the environmental and biomedical samples taken by the OPCW experts confirm the British findings about the nature of the toxic chemicals that poisoned two British citizens in Amesbury. It’s a nerve agent by chemical composition – the same substance that was found in the samples collected by the investigation into the poisoning of the Skripals and police officer Nick Bailey in Salisbury on March 4. Interestingly, the report says nothing about the origin of this nerve agent. The term “Novichok”, which was offhandedly put into circulation by the British political manipulators, is not mentioned, either.

Again, we emphasise that neither the OPCW, nor the British laboratory in Porton Down are in a position to determine the country of origin of the poisonous agents from Salisbury and Amesbury. Work on such chemical compounds has been underway for several decades now in a number of countries, including the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands. This is evidenced by the information from open sources obtained during independent investigations. We repeat this for those who may have a short memory.

This topic requires careful consideration by the OPCW. We call on the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation to take a very careful look at the information coming from the states parties to the Convention in response to its request regarding chemicals not controlled by the CWC. Back in May, Russia officially submitted a 400-page document listing about 1,000 new types of nerve agents that would be useful to consider from the point of view of amending the CWC Chemicals Supplement. We are interested to find out how much of such information came from the countries that so peremptorily associate the notorious Novichok agent with Russia. Did they provide such information to The Hague at all?

Clearly, Britain doesn’t care about the OPCW experts’ findings. What matters for London is to involve the OPCW into its outrageous accusations against Russia and use openly unscrupulous methods to associate the name of this organisation with the results of the corresponding investigations conducted by military chemists from Porton Down. That is, to have the OPCW approve unsubstantiated accusations.

We will continue to use facts to counter the anti-Russian hysteria around the Skripal case. It is regrettable that the OPCW Technical Secretariat, wittingly or unwittingly, is being drawn into the unscrupulous political game played by Britain and its allies, who do not care about the Convention.

We have previously stated on several occasions: there is nothing in the CWC that would require the Technical Secretariat to assist a member state in confirming the results of its national investigation. Strictly speaking, assistance is provided to those participating states that need it to fulfil their obligations under the Convention that are primarily related to destroying stockpiles of chemical weapons. Normally, these countries have no corresponding equipment or specialists. The British, as far as we know, have both in ample supply. The Porton Down laboratory is exactly the place that works with the substance referred to as Novichok in the West.

According to the CWC, a consultation procedure is used whenever a member state has questions for another member state. It can be conducted either directly in a bilateral format, or with the assistance of the Technical Secretariat and the OPCW Executive Council. We made relevant proposals to the British on many occasions, but they rejected them. Well, that's the choice of London.

We remind everyone of the futility of attempts to juggle the Convention provisions or to pile up groundless accusations. London must return to the legal framework of this document.

In the near future, we will again submit to the international community the background material pertaining to that matter. We will do so in The Hague and New York. We are confident that Britain’s attempts to find excuses for more attacks against us sooner or later will be brought to a stop.




LATEST EVENTS

19.07.2019 - Comment by the Information and Press Department on the Foreign Ministry's demarche to the US Embassy in Russia

On July 18, Tim Richardson, a minister-counselor of the US embassy in Russia, was summoned to the Foreign Ministry of Russia to receive a strong protest in connection with US media and officials’ statements alleging that Russia denied visas to teachers at the Anglo-American School in Moscow. It was stressed that the statements are absolutely untrue and that, in reality, the situation is the opposite.


18.07.2019 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the German newspaper Rheinische Post, published on July 18, 2019

Questions: Germans would like to have better relations with Russia. What could Russia do towards this? Sergey Lavrov: I can assure you that Russians are interested in developing multifaceted cooperation with Germany as well, the more so that your country is one of Russia’s major partners in Europe.


18.07.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the recent statements of UK Prime Minister Theresa May on Russia

Q: How would you comment on the statements made by UK Prime Minister Theresa May on Russia during her speech at the Royal Institute of International Affairs on 17 July? A.: We would like to say the following regarding Mrs May’s recent statements concerning our country.


17.07.2019 - Comment by the Information and Press Department on five years since MH17 crash

Five years ago, on July 17, 2014, Malaysia Airlines ‘Boeing’, a civilian aircraft operating flight МН17 from Amsterdam to Kuala-Lumpur, crashed in eastern Ukraine. All 298 people on board died. Unfortunately, this tragedy became a tool in a dirty political game. Within only hours, if not minutes, after the crash, as if prompted by someone, media and then Western political leaders launched a salvo of accusations against Russia for the killing of innocent people.


10.07.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question regarding the Russian delegation to the Global Conference on Media Freedom not given visas

Question: How would you comment on UK’s decision not to issue a visa to the Russian delegate who intended to participate in the Global Conference on Media Freedom? Answer: It is well-known that visas for official travel have become one of the problems of the current Russia-UK relations. But even in these conditions not issuing a visa to a representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry travelling to participate in the conference looks really weird. The UK side itself invited the Russian side to participate in the conference, accredited the Russian delegate, but then refused to issue him a visa, thus sabotaging the visit.


09.07.2019 - Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova's answer to a media question on the refusal of the British authorities to accredit Russian news agencies at an international conference in London

Question: What could you say about the refusal of the British authorities to accredit the Russian news agencies RT and Sputnik at the Global Conference for Media Freedom? Maria Zakharova: One gets the impression that having announced an event with a flashy title, London decided to show the whole world an example of manipulating public opinion. Judge for yourself. One of the main declared goals of this forum is to unite diplomatic efforts to protect media freedom and discuss violations of the rights of media workers. So what do we have in reality?


06.07.2019 - Comment by the Information and Press Department on the seizure of the Panama-flagged tanker by Gibraltar authorities

We condemn the seizure of the super tanker sailing under the Panama flag on July 4, conducted by the Gibraltar authorities aided by Great Britain’s Royal Marine Commando unit. We view the seizure of the vessel and its cargo as a deliberate action aimed at aggravating the situation around Iran and Syria. Laudatory comments by top US and British officials immediately after the operation confirm this conclusion and prove that the action had been long in the making with the involvement of respective services and agencies of several countries.


05.07.2019 - Embassy Press Release on RT channel’s accreditation to the Global Conference for Media Freedom

As we have learned, British organisers of the Global Conference for Media Freedom, due to take place in London on 10-11 July, have refused to accredit journalists from the RT channel. The reason given was that the quota of journalists invited to the Conference had already been reached – and that despite the fact that RT had sent the request several weeks ago and has long been trying, unsuccessfully, to get a meaningful reply.


04.07.2019 - Embassy comment on the situation concerning the Salisbury incident with Russian nationals Sergei and Yulia Skripal

16 months have passed since the mysterious incident in Salisbury. The British side continuously ignores multiple appeals by Russia to clear up the circumstances surrounding the incident, provide transparency of the investigation, allow access to the affected Russian citizens and launch substantive cooperation to establish, what and how happened in Salisbury in reality. As before, 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 over Russia’s own criminal case have been left unanswered. At the same time the British authorities continue to take an aggressive stance towards Russia, while claiming to have irrefutable evidence that our country was behind the incident. However, the British side does not bother to present the “evidence” either to Russia, or to their own allies, or to the public.


04.07.2019 - Embassy press officer’s comment regarding access to Crimea for international monitors

On 3 July Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced that during general debate in the UN Human Rights Council the British delegation called on Russia “to grant international human rights monitors access to illegally annexed Crimea”. Leaving aside the issue of “illegal annexation” (Russia’s stance on this subject is well-known), we would like to stress that the Republic of Crimea is open for visits of all international delegations and any foreign guests in general, on equal terms with all the other regions of our country. The FCO statement is therefore confusing. We consider it as yet another example of abuse of human rights issues by our British colleagues.



all messages