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 made by FCO Minister of State Mark Field in the House of Commons regarding the threat posed by the Russian 9M729 cruise missile?
Answer: We have taken note Mr Field’s comment with regard to the INF Treaty calling for Russia to destroy the 9M729 cruise missiles. Such statements by the UK officials are designed to maintain the US-initiated campaign to accuse Russia of violating the INF Treaty, primarily with the aim to justify Washington’s long-planned decision to withdraw from the Treaty. UK Government is perfectly aware that the US has refused to provide any objective data supporting their conclusion that the Russian 9М729 cruise missile has a range prohibited by the INF Treaty.
Russia has repeatedly confirmed that its missile programs fully comply with its obligations under the INF Treaty. This also applies to the 9M729 cruise missile, on which Russia provides maximum transparency. During the talks in Geneva on 15 January the Russian side invited US military experts to inspect the missile in order to address any existing concerns. However, this unprecedented step was rejected out of hand, confirming that Washington was simply not interested in maintaining the INF Treaty.
Question: How would you comment on the statement by the Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt recognising National Assembly President, Juan Guaido, as the interim President of Venezuela? Answer: We have repeatedly stated that attempts to change the leadership of Venezuela from outside and by unconstitutional means flagrantly violate the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, which is one of the cornerstones of international law and the UN Charter.
We have read the NATO Council statement of February 1, 2019 and noted that it was released much earlier than we received a formal notification from the United States about suspending its participation in the 1987 Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles and beginning the exit procedure.
Such haste is no surprise for Russia. This is yet another demonstration of the fact that NATO has fully blended with Washington’s line aimed at the final scrapping of the arms control system painstakingly built over many years.
The collapse of the INF Treaty will have grave and far-reaching consequences for the entire European security architecture NATO is allegedly deeply concerned about – and naturally, for the US allies in Europe.
On February 2, the US Department of State issued a press statement officially notifying the Russian Federation that the United States had suspended its obligations under the 1987 Soviet-US Treaty on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty) and had launched the procedure of withdrawing from it. At the same time, the Americans announced that they no longer consider themselves to be bound by the treaty obligations, which means that they can openly design, produce and deploy the weapon systems prohibited under the treaty.
Q.: How would you comment on the intention of Victoria Skripal to make a request to Russian law enforcement agencies to record her cousin Yulia as missing and to initiate a missing person investigation?
A.: The Embassy fully understands Victoria Skripal’s desperate call, as we do not have any information regarding the whereabouts and the health conditions of her relatives Sergey and Yulia. Almost a year has passed since the Salisbury incident and we have to state that British authorities and law enforcement agencies still have not provided any official results of the investigation. Numerous requests and proposals for cooperation within the inquiry of our nationals’ poisoning have been left without a response, and the investigation is being carried out in complete secrecy.
We are about the see the end of the 60-day period the United States has given Russia to scrap the missile, which allegedly breaches the terms of the INF accord. The nature and tonality of this ultimatum is clearly unacceptable to us, primarily because there is no proof whatsoever that Russia has violated any of its provisions. This missile does not violate the treaty and has never been tested for a range prohibited by the treaty. Therefore, all US claims to the contrary only show that the Americans are looking for excuses to get rid of the restrictions imposed on them by the INF treaty,” Sergei Ryabkov said.
Ryabkov believes that the INF treaty must be adhered to.
Question: How would you comment on the statement by the Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt in support of the self-proclaimed “interim president” of Venezuela Juan Guaidó? Answer: Our position on the events in Venezuela has been set out in several statements made by the Russian Foreign Ministry. The main point is: only the Venezuelans themselves have the right to determine their future, while any outside interference should be excluded. Declaring the incumbent president to be "illegitimate" and threatening to recognize another person as the head of the state represent an outright meddling in internal affairs and a flagrant violation of international law.
Question: The British authorities have increased their criticism of the human rights conditions in Russia lately. How would you comment on those statements?
Answer: Such claims definitely follow the spirit of the anti-Russian campaign initiated by the British establishment. It is hard to view them as anything but interference in the domestic affairs of our country.
Russia is a state governed by the rule of law, with “the human being, their rights and freedoms” being the supreme value under the Constitution. There is an effective system of human rights protection in place, including that through judicial bodies. It is important that Russian citizens have access to the European Court of Human Rights.
Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the recent publications regarding the incidents in Salisbury, Moscow, January 23, 2019
Question: How would you comment on the news that the EU has adopted further sanctions against Russian nationals allegedly involved in the Salisbury incident, upon British initiative?
Answer: Russia’s political assessment of this decision has been made clear in a commentary of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
To add to what has already been said, this is yet another example of bloc decision-making based on the ill-conceived “solidarity” rather than facts. The UK Conservative government has so far failed to provide the Russian side, the public or even their EU and NATO allies with any reliable and verifiable information as to what happened in Salisbury last March.
Pages: ««« :: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 :: »»»
| 
