EMBASSY INFORMS
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
Question: How would you comment on the statement by the British Ministry of Defence that on 23 August Royal Air Force fighter jets stationed in Romania “interrupted” a "provocative" Russian aircraft over the Black Sea? Answer: Russian armed forces strictly comply with international law and pose no threat to Britain. One might understand why Royal Navy escorts Russian military ships in the English Channel, in the vicinity of the British coastline, even if this there is no need for the UK to publicise it. But what kind of threat to Britain or its allies does a Russian patrol aircraft hypothetically pose while conducting flights off Russia's own shore, some 1500 miles away from the UK?
Question: How would you comment on the statement by Wiltshire Police that Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury, searched in the framework of the investigation of poisoning of Dawn Sturgess and Charles Rowley, is to be reopened for the public? Answer: First of all, we are happy for the people of Salisbury. Reopening of the park, which has also been cleaned from litter, gives them an opportunity to return to normal everyday life. However, we would like to stress that the British side still has not provided us with answers regarding the investigation which, as before, is being conducted in a non-transparent way.
Question: How would you comment on the publications in the British media that a Royal Navy minehunter vessel HMS Hurworth “intercepted” the Russian frigate “Admiral Makarov” when the latter was passing through the English Channel? Answer: Russian Navy ships act in accordance with the international law and strictly follow the current English Channel passing regulations. They do not pose any threat to the United Kingdom. The British side is well aware of this.
Question: How would you comment on the US, UK and France joint statement regarding the fifth anniversary of the chemical attack in Ghouta? Answer: Regretfully, the three states have issued another baseless statement. Five years have passed after the tragedy, and the international community still has not seen the proof of the Syrian government’s involvement in that incident. Moreover, it is put on a par with the events in Khan Sheikhun, Ltamena, Saraqeb and Douma, despite the fact that they took place after the successful completion of the international operation to remove precursors of chemical weapons from Syria in June 2014. “Assad regime” is blamed for the attack in a traditionally dogmatic manner, although even the US Department of State admitted that the terrorist groups operating in Syria had access to chemical weapons.
Question: How would you comment on the article by the Conservative Party MP Bob Seely in the “Daily Telegraph” claiming that Russia is “buying some European states and bullying others”, making it “difficult for the EU to unite against Russia”? Answer: Bob Seely’s article amounts to a manifesto of British russophobic circles. Such people tend to consider any social and economic phenomena in Europe through the lens of confrontation with the “aggressive Russia”.
Question: The British officials frequently use in their public statements the term “rules-based international order” or “system”. What is your view on such a wording? Answer: We follow this kind of verbal gymnastics with interest. The terms themselves are meant to create an impression that the UK is a consistent supporter of international law, ostensibly distinguishing London from some other states, who are supposed or declared to be its violators. In fact, this is an attempt to disguise apparent fundamental difference between consensual, agreed by the whole international community, clearly fixed norms of international law and some obscure “rules”, which are so dear to the British officials.
At a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt's urges to European partners to slap their own sanctions on Russia in connection with the Salisbury incident.
Question: Foreign Office Minister of State Alan Duncan has urged Russia to immediately release up to 70 “Ukrainian political prisoners”, including Oleg Sentsov and Volodymyr Balukh. How would you comment on this? Answer: The Embassy has taken note of the statement, which fails to reflect the real state of affairs. It should be reminded once again that Oleg Sentsov has been sentenced to 20 years in prison on grave charges of creating a terrorist group and preparing two terrorist acts. Volodymyr Balukh has been convicted to three and a half years in prison for illegal possession of arms. These are all criminal offences punishable not only in Russia but under the law of a vast majority of countries, including the United Kingdom.
Queston: How would you comment on the anti-Russian remarks made by the UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt during his US visit? Answer: Those statements follow the general line of the current Conservative government towards Russia. It is highly symbolic that Foreign Secretary Hunt has chosen the US Institute of Peace as a venue for his attacks. There is not much about peace. The UK authorities may prefer to continue their policy of scaremongering, using the so-called “Russian threat” in order to distract the British public from those urgent domestic and international problems the UK currently faces. But this “enemy search” is a flawed and shortsighted policy.
Question: How would you comment on the UK approaches to the reconstruction of Syria and repatriation of the refugees? Answer: Unfortunately, the UK continues to follow the overall pattern of Western policy of obstruction that Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov was talking about yesterday at the press-conference following the meeting with his Lebanese colleague Gebran Bassil. He said that the “US was making a contribution to Syria’s restoration; however, it was limited to the areas occupied by the opposition groups that were not always constructive”. Unfortunately, these words are fully applicable to the UK participation in that process. We have to acknowledge that London still prefers to provide assistance only to the Syrian regions under control of the militant opposition and jihadists groups.
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
| 
