22 February 2019
Moscow: 13:57
London: 10:57

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

 
355 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     347 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

21.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning placing Sergey and Yulia Skripal on a missing person list

Question: How would you comment on the media reports suggesting that Sergey Skripal’s mother has officially requested Russian law enforcement agencies to record her son and granddaughter as missing and initiate a missing person investigation? According to the British side, the UK agencies have not received any official notice from the Russian authorities with regard to placing the Skripals on a missing person list. Answer: We fully understand the natural concern of Elena Skripal with what has happened to her relatives. The situation is exacerbated by a lack of access to the Russian citizens in violation of international law and the bilateral 1965 Consular Convention. In this case we are unable to officially state that Sergey and Yulia are still alive. We are disturbed by the recent media leaks concerning the worsening health of Sergey Skripal, whose track has been lost since the incident on 4 March 2018. As for Yulia, she was seen only once in May 2018 in a video address which was obviously pre-written by the British secret services. All this indicates that both our nationals are being isolated.


20.02.2019 - Comment by the Information and Press Department on the 5th anniversary of the state coup in Ukraine and its consequences

Following the 2014 state coup, which the United States and several other countries openly supported, Ukraine has been falling ever deeper into political chaos, corruption, lawlessness and aggressive nationalism. Over the past five years, Ukraine has been engulfed in violence and crimes committed on political and ideological grounds. Most of these crimes were not followed by appropriate legal action. The case of the snipers who shot people on Maidan has not been objectively investigated, and the tragedy in Odessa in May 2014 has not been solved. Contrary to their declarations of commitment to democracy and human rights and freedoms, the Ukrainian authorities are actually hunting down those whose views differ from the official position. Many independent Ukrainian media outlets and journalists, including editor-in-chief of RIA Novosti Ukraine Kirill Vyshinsky, have been victimised and persecuted.


19.02.2019 - INF TREATY: FACT SHEET

- Full name: Treaty Between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles. - Signed in Washington on 8 December 1987 by General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan. Entered into force on 1 June 1988. - Required destruction of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment, thus promoting stability and predictability, as well as playing a major role in reformatting the geopolitical landscape in Europe and interstate relations between the key players in this region. - Contained detailed rules on the procedure of missiles elimination and inspections.


19.02.2019 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at the Munich Security Conference, Munich, February 16, 2019

First of all, Wolfgang (Ischinger), thank you for your presentation and your kind words. There is yet another reason why I address [this conference] more often than anyone else: this is because you have kept your post for so long. Today, the situation on the European continent and generally in the Euro-Atlantic region is, certainly, extremely tense. There appear ever more new rifts and the old ones grow deeper. I think that under these circumstances, it is relevant and even timely to turn to the European Home idea, no matter how strange this may sound in the current situation. Many great modern day politicians realised the need for pooling the potentials of absolutely all European states. Let me mention Charles de Gaulle, who put forward the concept of Greater Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, a peaceful Europe without divides or bloc confrontations, which, in his opinion, made Europe “artificial and barren.” Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Francois Mitterrand also spoke about the importance of the broadest possible partnership with Russia in the name of stability and security.


17.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the appearance of the Russian flag on the Salisbury Cathedral

Question: How would you comment on the reports by the British media that on Sunday morning someone hoisted a Russian flag on the scaffolding around the Salisbury Cathedral? Answer: We saw these reports, but we do not have any official information on them. If the reports of hoisting a Russian flag are true, then it all looks to us like a well-staged provocation.


16.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the interview by Dawn Sturgess's parents

Question: The Guardian has published an interview with the parents of the British citizen Dawn Sturgess, who died in July last year allegedly from “Novichok” poisoning. They put the blame for the non-transparent investigation on the UK government. How would you comment on their statements? Answer: We have studied carefully the interview and fully agree with Dawn Sturgess's family. Numerous questions regarding the tragedy in Amesbury remain unanswered, the British authorities continue to conceal the circumstances of that incident. We fully understand the fair indignation Dawn Sturgess's relatives feel.


14.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning recent appeals of the British officials to impose new sanctions against Russia

Question: How would you comment on the recent statements by the British officials calling upon their European partners to impose new sanctions against Russia over the incident in the Kerch Strait last year? Answer: We have not been surprised with such an active UK’s approach. Those statements have clearly shown the anti-Russian essence of the current Conservative government’s policy. British officials are doing their utmost to avoid conducting a normal intergovernmental dialogue with Russia, while using only the language of ultimatums and sanctions.


13.02.2019 - Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at the UN Security Council Briefing on Ukraine

Mr. President, Above all, let me thank today’s briefers: Mr. M.Jenča, Mm. U.Müller, Mr. E.Apakan and Mr. M.Sajdik. We have initiated this meeting in order to discuss the course of implementation of “Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements” – the most important document for the settlement of Ukraine’s internal crisis. It was signed 4 years ago, on 12 February 2015 by the representatives of OSCE, Ukraine, Russia, DPR and LPR.


11.02.2019 - Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at UN Security Council meeting on the situation in Kosovo

Thank you, Mr. President, Above all, we would like to thank our colleagues from Equatorial Guinea for their principal position and for inclusion of a meeting on Kosovo in the Council’s agenda for February in order to discuss the situation in the Province and the report by Secretary-General of 31 January on the implementation of UNSC resolution 1244. We welcome the participation of Mr. Ivica Dačić, First Deputy Prime-Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia. Distinguished Minister, we share the profound concerns about the situation in Kosovo that you talked about.


09.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s Reply to a media question regarding the UK position on Kosovo at the UN Security Council

Question: How would you comment on the UK position on Kosovo at the UN Security Council (UN SC)? Answer: The developments in the province are still worrying. As we have stressed earlier, Pristina’s decision to transform the Kosovo Security Force into full-fledged “armed forces” is a flagrant violation of the UN SC Resolution 1244 that only allows for the deployment of internationally controlled multinational contingents in the province. What is more, it goes against Kosovo’s own “constitution”.



all messages