21 May 2019
Moscow: 22:47
London: 20:47

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

 
443 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     435 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

01.03.2019

Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia prior to the UN Security Council Vote on the US Draft Resolution on Venezuela

Mr. President,

We have finally come to a culmination of the American double standard show on Venezuela. One month ago and the day before yesterday, during the Council meetings, it became obvious, that the majority of countries in the Western hemisphere, notwithstanding their political views, believe that Venezuela’s problems should be solved by the Venezuelans on the basis of a dialogue. Nation-wide and inclusive dialogue is what Venezuela needs now. However, Washington persistently marches towards its goal to escalate tension and implement the scenario that envisages unconstitutional change of authority.

Let us have a look at the US draft resolution. What does Washington put to a vote of the UN Security Council today? Here it is. Recognize the Parliament (the National Assembly) of Venezuela as the country’s, I quote, “constitutional authority”. Recognize presidential elections that took place in March last year to have been “neither free nor fair” – though almost a year has passed since then. This is the reason why the US proposed its draft resolution. Hypocritical concerns about the humanitarian situation in the country is a mere pretext.

The US might have another goal as well – to go down in history. If this resolution were adopted, it would be the first case when the Security Council dismissed one president of a sovereign country and appointed another. I do not even touch upon the political aspect. This is not even about N.Maduro and J.Guaido.

Do you not understand that in legal terms it is null and void? Is this a subtle trolling or a mockery of the SC members? Those of you who plan to support the US draft, do you realize that you will become part of a legal theatre of absurd?

The US delegation cannot fail to understand that their resolution does not have a chance to be adopted. However, they intentionally table it in the Council in order to point fingers at those who allegedly impede “the establishment of democracy” in Venezuela. Now you deliberately undermine the Council’s unity. Is this really what you need? Our American colleagues seem to have forgotten what international law is. There are only ultimatums, sanctions, threats to use force left in your diplomatic toolbox.

We are fully aware of the fact that all of this has been initiated with the sole purpose: to accuse the countries who disagree, of hindering humanitarian aid deliveries to Venezuela. However, this is another instance of shameless propaganda. On February 26 we elaborated, that Russia and China could freely and without any impediment deliver humanitarian assistance to Venezuela. Only the US failed to do so, because it neglected the sovereignty and inviolability of national borders of a sovereign state. I said this the day before yesterday, I will repeat it today. If the US had really wanted to help the people of Venezuela, they would have acted via UN agencies accredited in the country. But this is not the goal. This is only a smokescreen. The goal is a regime change.

This is probably the most outspoken and the most straightforward case of implementation of the infamous concept of “humanitarian intervention”, which is an intervention that has humanitarian aspects and that is carried out under a humanitarian guise. This is the “rules based order” that our Western colleagues speak about and propose to us instead of the international law.

Therefore, we prepared an alternative draft resolution that would not stimulate political intrigues and regime change, but would envisage real help for the Venezuelans in their efforts to normalize the situation in the country.

We have highlighted that any international assistance should base on the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence and be effected only with consent of the legitimate government of the affected country. Besides, our document expresses support of international mediator efforts, including the Montevideo Mechanism that could help the Venezuelans come to what is the most important now – the political settlement. The American draft contains nothing of this sort, because it is not meant to solve problems.

Yesterday we held expert consultations on our draft. We listened to the opinions of the SC Member States, including the representatives of the US. We heard not a single specific comment. The Western experts only said that they would not work on our draft. Right thereafter the American colleagues put their draft to vote. Is this diplomacy? Is this search for compromise? This entire combination is merely propaganda publicity, dictated to a large extent by domestic political concerns. We regret that the Security Council is being dragged into this again.

We have serious concerns that today’s meeting might be used as another stage in preparing a real, not a humanitarian intervention on the pretext of “inability of the Security Council” to regulate the situation in Venezuela.

We would like again to address those Members of the SC who really want to help: do not encourage this political show. We call upon you to vote against the American draft resolution and to support our document that avoids any controversial wordings and is designed to provide real assistance to the Venezuelans – I mean international assistance and international mediation.




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