20 July 2019
Moscow: 04:51
London: 02:51

Consular queries:  
+44 (0) 203 668 7474  

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



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.


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