22 May 2019
Moscow: 00:40
London: 22:40

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

 
444 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     436 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

28.09.2018

Statement by the Permanent Representative of Russia to the OPCW A.Shulgin

Excellencies,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today we invited you here to present the Russian position in relation to the ongoing insinuations by the UK about the chemical weapons’ incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury.

On 4 September 2018 the OPCW Technical Secretariat issued a press release and a summary of the report on the results of the so-called technical assistance provided to the British side in connection with the incident in Amesbury. On the next day a confidential and full version of this report was made available to the States Parties. As declared, the results of the analysis confirmed that it was a nerve agent and that the same agent – that’s its chemical composition - corresponds to the substance that had appeared in the so-called "Scripal’s Case". Such a technical conclusion did not prevent the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Jeremy Hunt from stating on the same day that, quote: “Report by the OPCW confirms the UK’s findings – the nerve agent used in Amesbury poisoning was Novichok. Russian recklessness is appalling and irresponsible…”

Speaking on 5 September 2018 in the Parliament of the UK, the Prime Minister Theresa May presented the results of a national investigation that allegedly point to the involvement of the GRU agents in Salisbury and Amesbury incidents. Once again, absurd arguments were voiced about Russia's involvement: allegedly Russia alone has the means to produce the Novichok; it covers up the stockpiles of this chemical; it’s only Russia that has a motive for neutralizing the former spy Sergei Skripal. The statement is finalized with a thoughtful conclusion that this act is sanctioned at a high political level, that this is supposedly one of the examples of Russia's aggressive activity on the world stage in a series of other events, in particular the annexation of the Crimea and the invasion of the Donbas.

I will begin with a refutation of all these absurd arguments. There has been a lot of information in the open sources indicating that many western countries – above all the United States and the United Kingdom – have been working with nerve agents of a new generation. And it was there – in the mentioned countries - where the general term “Novichok” for all these chemicals was put into circulation. The Russian side has submitted a voluminous 300-page compilation of materials to the OPCW Scientific Advisory Board, which we also requested to circulate as our national document among all the States Parties to the Convention. There are several of well-known facts: back in 1998, the Americans included a mass spectrum of a substance, which they call "Novichok" in the national database – CAS. At the 57th Meeting of the OPCW Executive Council we also showed documents confirming that the US patented the CW’s munitions, which were supposed to be filled with a nerve agent of the "Novichok" class.

Here is a request from the US patent agency: the Americans wanted this invention of Mr. Rubin to be also registered in the Russian patent bodies.

The President of the Czech Republic Milos Zeman has also confirmed that in the Czech laboratory in Brno in 2017 the research was conducted with a new generation of nerve agents, referred to in the West as the "Novichok".

In an interview with “Deutsche Welle”, the former UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson admitted that there was the Novichok agent in the British laboratory of Porton Down.

And a very recent example: the journalists of the well-known Dutch newspaper “NRC Handelsblat” have ascertained that the substances of the "Novichok" family were not a secret, they were synthesized in many places. In particular, such works were conducted at the Dutch research center called “TNO, Defence, Security and Safety in Rijswijk. So this is not a tenable argument that there are only the Soviet Union and Russia where this substance could have originated from.

Another message of the British - they say, only the Russians had a motive to poison the former spy Scripal. Even the zealous Western critics of the President Vladimir Putin note that he is a soberly thinking politician. Could it be that on the eve of the World Cup and especially shortly before the presidential elections the Russian authorities would have done something like this, given the huge political costs? The answer is obvious: Russia did not need it.

Our opponents claim that the motive for the crime is the elimination of spies by Russia abroad. They say, this is a state sponsored policy to eradicate defectors. This was allegedly claimed by President Vladimir Putin. Let someone give us at least one statement like this. This is an outright lie.

We have a lot of questions concerning the mysterious deaths of Russian citizens living in the UK. This includes, in particular, the poisoning of former FSB officer Mr.A.Litvinenko, the death of Russian businessmen Mr.B.Patarkatsishvili and Mr.A.Perepilichny, the mysterious "suicide" of Mr.B.Berezovsky and the strangulation of his business partner Mr.N.Glushkov. All these people died tragically, for some reason, exactly on the British soil under very unclear circumstances. Even at that time, there were still attempts to directly or indirectly blame it on Russia. As in the “Scripals case” these accusations were based on speculations and newspaper hoax. The investigation of all these cases was conducted in an extremely non-transparent way. It did not allow to establish what really happened.

Meanwhile, this summer the daughter of Boris Berezovsky – Elizaveta made an important statement: she does not believe in the official British version of the suicide of her father. She is convinced that he was killed. She hired the well-known German criminalist Berdt Brinkmann who also disproved the findings of the British police. Shortly before his death, Mr.B.Berezovsky wrote a letter to Mr.Putin. He asked the President for pardon and expressed the willingness to return to Russia. Perhaps, someone opposed his return to his homeland?

As for the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents, the UK authorities provided photographs of two people, as they say – GRU agents. They allegedly came to Salisbury and put poisonous gelatinous substance on the handle of the Scripals’ front door. After that – for some reason – they left it in a charity bin where it was found by Ms. Dawn Sturgess. The woman received a deadly poisoning dose. This British scenario has plenty of inconsistencies and gaps.

First, the so-called GRU super-agents knowing that on almost every street corner you can find CCTV cameras deliberately exposed themselves for video-footage.

There are some other flaws in the British position. In particular:

- no data was provided either to us or to the public by British side concerning passport numbers, fingerprints, dates of birth of Mr. A.Petrov and Mr. R.Boshirov, who applied for British visa as well as information about their previous trips to the UK and other EU countries;

- any links to the GRU, and even more – to the political leadership of Russia, seem to be total nonsense. This is again the speculation, but not facts. Actually, as an argument Teresa May stated, the GRU is characterized by high discipline, and thus it is clear the two individuals could not operate on their own. That's all kind of pervert logic. Neither OPCW could say anything about the origin of the "Novichok", nor the Brits were able to present any other evidence rather than photos and names of suspected persons.

We understand the motives for the refusal of the British to request extradition of these individuals, but why they do not request legal assistance from the Russian Federation? They claim that they "do not intend to cooperate with the killers". Nevertheless, a sensible part of the public will have a question: how then to determine the truth? Perhaps there is an easier explanation for everything. One of the possible reasons why the UK refuses to follow a legal path is that its evidence is not that valid.

Let me remind you that according to its Art. IX, the CWC stipulates a clear algorithm of actions to clarify the controversial situations.  In particular CWC requires the States-Parties should conduct bilateral consultations on any controversial issue. Acting in the legal field of the Convention, the British should have sent a request to us, and we, in turn, within 10 days to give them an answer.

However, the UK rejected our offer of cooperation, considering it below its dignity.

Our Embassy in London sent more than 60 Notes Verbales to the Foreign Office with a request for a consular access to Sergei and Yulia Skripals. However all our attempts were turned down. Thus London violated the bilateral consular convention of 1968 and the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959. All this is done by the United Kingdom, a state positioning itself as the beacon of international law.

Without any intension to follow the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention the UK actually invented a new formula: a technical assistance in the identification of scheduled or unscheduled chemicals under the paragraph 38 e) of Article VIII.

To begin with, “technical assistance” in the identification of a chemical is needed for those countries that have neither experts, nor laboratories, experience nor necessary equipment. The British side has all this in abundance. Especially since everything was determined in advance: this was a non-scheduled nerve agent. The Technical Secretariat was summoned only to confirm its own conclusions.

At the same time, the experts of the Technical Secretariat for some reason were taken to the morgue so that they could participate in taking biomedical samples from the deceased Dawn Sturgess. What does “technical assistance” mean in this context? This is a direct involvement of the Technical Secretariat in the national investigation. London just needs the "seal" of the OPCW to say that the specialized international organization has empowered the UK conclusions with its authority. But at the same time, as I said before, the Technical Secretariat has neither confirmed the fact that this substance is the so-called "Novichok", nor the country of origin. That is all fiction and propaganda of the British politicians.

The Russian Federation is an honest and responsible participant of the CWC. Back in 1992, all CW’s works were stopped in accordance with a special Presidential Decree. After the entry into force of the CWC, the Russian Federation has fully and thoroughly complied with all the obligations under this international treaty. Hundreds of OPCW inspectors participated in monitoring activities for many years. In 2017 we completed our chemical disarmament ahead of schedule, which was certified by our Organization. I would like to stress once again: Russia has fulfilled its obligations in full, we have nothing to hide. We completely destroyed all chemical weapons stockpiles.

However, there is still one country - the United States of America - that is not in a hurry with chemical disarmament. Surprising as it is, Americans justify themselves by saying that they lack necessary funding. Whereas Russia managed to disarm completely, the United States still has a large chemical arsenal. Why do Americans keep silent about this? They should also shed light on what kind of research and development they continue to conduct. After all, such information appears regularly. This is especially relevant since a number of former Soviet chemists with chemical weapons expertise, now reside in the United States.




LATEST EVENTS

20.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s comment concerning new articles in the British media on the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents

On 20 May “The Guardian” published a new leak concerning last year’s incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury. Its contents, based, as before, on information from “sources close to the investigation”, lead to following conclusions. First and foremost, it becomes increasingly clear that the loud-voiced accusations against Russia made right after the incident by Prime Minister Theresa May in March 2018 were not supported by any facts. For many months, investigators have attempted to credibly corroborate the government’s interpretation of those events, but, apparently, without any success. If one is to believe the newspaper’s source, law enforcement professionals are getting frustrated by constant political pressure they are experiencing.


20.05.2019 - Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at the UN Security Council Meeting on Syria

Frankly speaking, we again have a feeling of deja vu. We heard same calls and laments many times already, when reconciliation of Eastern Aleppo and Ghouta was in progress. However, let me ask why the “humanitarian troika” did not hurry to convene a Security Council meeting, when the so-called coalition was razing Baghouz and Hajin to the ground? Back then civilians died, air strikes destroyed civil infrastructure, including schools and hospitals. What about Raqqa? Almost no one bothered about the fate of this city that in fact was destroyed.


17.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media questionon an anti-Russian article in the “Financial Times”

Q: How would you comment on the FT article of 17 May stating that “a US-Iran conflict would provide cover for Russia to further their ambitions”, in particular “to annex eastern Ukraine or take a chunk of one of the Baltic states”? A: Such kind of “analysis” in the FT, well-known by its professionalism and strive for objectivity, is quite surprising.


17.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer's letter to the Editor of the Financial Times

Embassy Press Officer's letter to the Editor of the Financial Times regarding the newspaper's piece dated 17 May 2019 on the Crimea Bridge - “Russian bridge throttles Ukraine ports”.


17.05.2019 - Embassy press officer’s reply to a media question concerning the BBC’s announcement of a new film about the incident in Salisbury

Question: How would you comment on the BBC’s plans to make a drama about the incident in Salisbury which took place in March last year? Answer: Undoubtedly, we will study this film carefully when it is released. At the same time we would like to recommend the filmmakers to rely upon real facts as well as official and credible information of the investigation. So far, no meaningful results of the inquiry have been presented either to the Russian side or to the public. In these circumstances, the film risks becoming another propaganda tool imposing on the audience the political version of the incident supported by no evidence.


16.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question regarding biased approach of the British authorities towards holders of Russian diplomatic passports.

Question: Has there been any improvement in the working environment for the Russian diplomats in the UK? What’s the situation with the issuance of visas to the Embassy staff? Answer: Despite isolated statements of the British authorities, we are not observing any qualitative improvements of the situation. Moreover, in certain aspects it is only getting worse. Recently, there has been an increase in the number of cases of biased approach of the UK Border Force officials towards Russian diplomats arriving to the UK on short-term assignments, as well as guests of the Embassy staff members.


15.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question regarding calls from British MPs to impose sanctions against Russia

Question: How would you comment on media publications that British MPs are calling to impose additional sanctions against Russia? Answer: We have taken note of the publications in local media that the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Russia, Chris Bryant, has urged Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt to impose sanctions against Russia using the so-called “Magnitsky clause” to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act.


15.05.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the state of the investigation into the death of Nikolay Glushkov

Q: Does the Embassy have any further information in relation to the investigation into the death of the Russian national Nikolay Glushkov in London? A.: More than a year has passed since Nikolay Glushkov’s death. Through all this time, the British authorities have been performing a strange political play, refusing to provide information on the investigation or to cooperate with the competent Russian authorities. The British side continues to ignore our numerous enquiries, including the official request of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation for legal assistance over Russia’s own criminal case into the death of Nikolay Glushkov and the Embassy’s proposal to arrange a meeting between the Russian Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko and the Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick.


09.05.2019 - Congratulations on the 74th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War

President Putin sent congratulatory messages to the leaders and citizens of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as the people of Georgia and Ukraine, on the 74th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.


05.05.2019 - Comment by the Information and Press Department on the US Report on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Non-Proliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitment

The Foreign Ministry has taken note of the US Department of State’s newly released preliminary version of its Report on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Non-Proliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments, and would like to make the following observations in this regard.



all messages